A MAKERSPACE FOR ALL: YOUTH LEARNING, IDENTITY, AND DESIGN IN A COMMUNITY-BASED MAKERSPACE  By  Myunghwan Shin                  A DISSERTATION   Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements  for the degree of   Curriculum, Instruction, and Teacher Education - Doctor of Philosophy  2016          ABSTRACT A MAKERSPACE FOR ALL: YOUTH LEARNING, IDENTITY, AND DESIGN IN A COMMUNITY-BASED MAKERSPACE  By Myunghwan Shin  This study investigates the stories of youth makers who participated in the Making for Change (M4C) program at a community-based makerspace. The purpose of this study is to understand what an equity-oriented makerspace might look like and why it matters to youth learning, identity, and agency by foregrounding the voices and experiences of youth makers. I conducted three interrelated studies to achieve this goal.   The first study explores how and why young people frame engineering problems in a community-based makerspace within the discourse of public goodÑwhere learning STEM involves a commitment to community sustainability, and the incorporation of green energy technologies into design is situated as a part of larger systemic response to climate change. Using expansive learning theory and a longitudinal ethnographic case study, I examine how and why two youths designed and prototyped a solar-powered cell phone case charger, and how the ways in which the two youths merged their cultural funds of knowledge with engineering design shaped their engineering design work.   The second study examines what practices youth engage in at a community-based makerspace, and how and why they engage in such practices. This study also explores what youth engagement in these practices tells us about the design of inclusive makerspaces for youth from non-dominant communities. Using the mobilities of learning theory, this critical ethnographic study explores the stories of two groups of youths engaged in making items that are related to safety and environmental issues in their communities.   The third study investigates how youth frame the importance of a youth-centered and community-based makerspace through engaging in Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR), and what their engagement in YPAR tells us about their desired identities and practices in making/engineering. Guided by the YPAR framework, this study examines the process and results of a YPAR project involving 16 youths who researched the design features of local makerspaces, then designed a new youth-centered and community-based makerspace at a local afterschool club.    The implications for the practice and research of makerspaces are discussed.                              Copyright by MYUNGHWAN SHIN 2016             v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS   So many people supported me throughout this process that I find myself unable to adequately express my thanks. First, I am grateful to my advisor and the chair of my dissertation committee, Dr. Angela Calabrese Barton. The support she provided throughout my graduate school career enabled me to develop and execute this whole process of my dissertation. Her warm encouragement helped me recover when I faltered, and her patience and understanding aided me in overcoming many difficulties in completing this dissertation. I thank her for guiding me to think deeply about and improve the quality of my work. I learned much from her not only about writing and research but also about how to approach life and my profession as a scholar.  I am also thankful to my amazing committee members, Drs. Gail Richmond, Terry Flennaugh, and Vaughn Watson, for their generous contributions to my work. Their guidance and insight assisted me throughout this process, and I recognize my fortune to have them as mentors.   There is no way to express the importance of my experience with those involved in the GET City program. I am thankful for the opportunity to work with all the staff and youth whose participation provided an ideal context for this project.   Thanks to all my awesome colleagues in the Invincibility Lab: Day Greenberg, Christina Restrepo, Sarah Keenan, Katie Schenkel, and Marcos Gonzalez. They are invaluable peers who gave me energy and care when I truly needed it.   I express the deepest gratitude for my wife, Jane, who made this dissertation possible. Without her support and encouragement, I would not have had the courage to   vi begin or the means to complete this journey. I thank her for her sacrifices for me to succeed. Her belief in me and her pride in my accomplishments are reminders of how lucky I am to have her in my life. I also wish to thank my family and friends for their excitement for my work and their endless love and support.   Finally, I thank God for providing blessings, for keeping my head up in good times and bad, and for giving me the strength to persevere.                     vii TABLE OF CONTENTS    LIST OF TABLES  ............................................................................................................ x  LIST OF FIGURES  ......................................................................................................... xi  CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION  .............................................................................................................  1 Purpose and Research Questions  ............................................................................ 4 Significance  ............................................................................................................ 4 Dissertation Structure  ............................................................................................. 5  CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................... 7 LITERATURE REVIEW  ................................................................................................... 7 Maker Movement and Makerspaces  ....................................................................... 7 Makerspaces and STEM education  ...................................................................... 11 The Features of Makerspace as STEM Learning Environments ............... 12 How Participation in Making or Tinkering Influences Youth Learning and Development in STEM .............................................................................. 13 Diversity, Equity, and Makerspaces .......................................................... 16 Limitations of Previous Studies  ............................................................................ 18  CHAPTER THREE  ........................................................................................................ 21 INNOVATING WITH AND FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD: YOUTHÕS ENGINEERING DESIGN AND HYBRIDITY ............................................................................................ 21 Introduction  .......................................................................................................... 21 Engineering Practice For Sustainable Communities ............................................. 22 Defining Problems ..................................................................................... 23 Designing Solutions ................................................................................... 23 Expansive Learning  .............................................................................................. 24 Methods  ................................................................................................................ 26 Context and Participants  ........................................................................... 27 Green Club: Engineering Design for Sustainable Communities and Expansive Learning  .................................................................................. 29 Data Generation and Analysis  .................................................................. 30 Findings  ................................................................................................................ 32 Defining Design Problems  ........................................................................ 33 Developing Possible Solutions  ................................................................. 37 Optimizing Designs  .................................................................................. 41 Optimizing designs 1: Focusing on the iPhone 5 .......................... 41 Optimizing designs 2: Rotatable solar cell .................................... 42 Discussion  ............................................................................................................. 49 Three Ongoing Pivotal Reflection Points  ................................................. 49 Intersection of Engineering as Innovation and Engineering as Instrument for the Public Good  ................................................................................... 52   viii Conclusion  ............................................................................................................ 54  CHAPTER FOUR ........................................................................................................... 56 TOWARD BUILDING MAKERSPACES FOR ALL: YOUTH ENGAGEMENT AND MOBILITIES OF LEARNING IN A COMMUNITY-BASED MAKERSPACE  .......... 56 Introduction  .......................................................................................................... 56 Mobilities of Learning  .......................................................................................... 60 Methods  ................................................................................................................ 62 Critical Ethnography  ................................................................................. 62 Context  ...................................................................................................... 63 Participants  ............................................................................................... 65 Data Generation  ........................................................................................ 66 Participant observation ................................................................. 66 Conversation groups ...................................................................... 66 Artifact think-aloud interviews ...................................................... 66 Youth artifact collection ................................................................ 67 Data Analysis  ............................................................................................ 67 Youth Projects  .......................................................................................... 69 SamuelÕs Projects: Light-up Football & Phantom Jacket ............. 69 Emily and JenniferÕs Projects: Light-up Scooter & Heated Jacket  ....................................................................................................... 70 Findings  ................................................................................................................ 73 The youthsÕ making practices, which include defining problems and designing solutions, reflect deep and critical knowledge of communitiesÕ needs .......................................................................................................... 74 The tools of youth ethnography, and the interactions generated by these tools, provided powerful opportunities for youth to a) better leverage their insider knowledge and status as an important part of making, b) use their knowledge of community as launching pads for deeper engagement in STEM/making practices, such as understanding design tasksÕ boundaries, including their criteria and constraints ...................................................... 78 In order to be responsive to community needs, the youth found it necessary to account for the complex, multifaceted dimensions of the problems and potential solutions, even when their making work became more difficult as a result ............................................................................ 84 Rooting the making process in community needs and insider knowledge supported the youth in findings ways of humanizing STEM for themselves and others ................................................................................................... 95 Discussion  ............................................................................................................. 98 Conclusion  .......................................................................................................... 101  CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................... 104 ÒWE WANT A MAKERSPACE!Ó: YOUTH PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH FOR DESIGNING A YOUTH-CENTERED MAKERSPACE  ..................................... 104 Introduction  ........................................................................................................ 104 Youth Participatory Action Research  ................................................................. 107   ix Methods  .............................................................................................................. 109 Youth Participants  .................................................................................. 109 A Snapshot of the YPAR Project  ........................................................... 110 Data Generation  ...................................................................................... 115 Participant observation ............................................................... 115 Group conversations .................................................................... 116 Video reflection diaries ............................................................... 116 Youth artifact collection .............................................................. 116 Data Analysis  .......................................................................................... 117 Findings  .............................................................................................................. 118 A kid-friendly space: Unraveling power dynamics  ................................ 119 Taking a Stance: ÒOur M4C Makerspace ManifestoÓ  ............................ 124 What can we learn from the manifesto? ...................................... 131 Designing a Workshop: Teach, Show, Design, and Make!  .................... 133 Teach group ................................................................................. 135 Show group .................................................................................. 138 Design group ............................................................................... 140 Make group .................................................................................. 141 Conducting the Workshop: Educating and Transforming the BGC ........ 144 Discussion  ........................................................................................................... 149 YPAR for Empowering the Youth to Challenge ÒAdult-friendlyÓ Makerspaces ............................................................................................ 149 What the youth were allowed to do ............................................. 150 Who they were supported to make with ....................................... 151 How the youth were allowed to be ............................................... 153 Challenging the Boundaries of Making and Makerspaces  ..................... 154 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 155  CHAPTER SIX .............................................................................................................. 157 IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................................. 157  Implications for Teaching and Learning in Makerspaces ................................... 157 Implications for Designing Makerspaces ............................................................ 158 Implications for Research on Makerspaces  ........................................................ 160  REFERENCES  ............................................................................................................. 162   x LIST OF TABLES    Table 3.1. Data Generation  ............................................................................................... 31  Table 4.1. Data Generation  ............................................................................................... 67  Table 5.1. Youth Participants of the YPAR project  ....................................................... 110  Table 5.2. Data Generation   ............................................................................................ 117   Table 5.3: Criteria for a Youth-centered Makerspace ..................................................... 153    xi LIST OF FIGURES    Figure 3.1. Caitlyn and QuentinÕs Initial Idea (Sketch Notebook)  ................................... 34  Figure 3.2. Survey Results ("What Kind of Phone Do You Have?")  ............................... 42  Figure 3.3. YouthsÕ 3D Model of a Solar-Powered Phone Case  ...................................... 45  Figure 3.4. Measuring Currents and Voltages of Solar Cells  ........................................... 47  Figure 3.5. Calculating Power and Charging Time  .......................................................... 48  Figure 3.6. Prototype of Solar-Powered Phone Case Charger  ......................................... 48  Figure 4.1. Samuel's Light-up Football  ............................................................................ 70  Figure 4.2. Samuel's Phantom Jacket  ............................................................................... 70  Figure 4.3. Emily & Jennifer's Light-up Scooter  ............................................................. 72  Figure 4.4. Emily & Jennifer's Heated Jacket  .................................................................. 73  Figure 4.5. The Problems in Relation to Safety in SamuelÕs Community  ....................... 80  Figure 4.6. Initial Sketch of Samuel's Phantom Jacket  .................................................... 81  Figure 4.7. Initial Sketch of Light Up Scooter  ................................................................. 82  Figure 4.8. Jennifer Tests How a Solar Panel Works  ....................................................... 82  Figure 4.9. Samuel Tests Whether His Light-up Football Is Waterproof  ........................ 83  Figure 4.10. Emily and Jennifer's Pinterest Page  ............................................................. 88  Figure 4.11. Google Sketchup Model of Protector  ........................................................... 89  Figure 4.12. Separating the Holder Part from the Protector  ............................................. 90  Figure 4.13. Attaching the Protector to the Jacket  ........................................................... 90  Figure 4.14. Jennifer Learns How to Use the Sewing Machine with the Help of a BGC Staff  .................................................................................................................................. 94  Figure 4.15. Samuel Presents His Phantom Jacket to His Classroom  .............................. 98   xii Figure 5.1. Accordion Door between the Cafeteria and the Makerspace  ....................... 111  Figure 5.2. Virtual Tours of Makerspaces ....................................................................... 114  Figure 5.3. Makerspace Investigation .............................................................................. 114  Figure 5.4. Measuring the Dimension of a BGC Room  ................................................. 115  Figure 5.5. Patricia and Ashlee's Script  .......................................................................... 126  Figure 5.6. 1 Min 12 Sec into Movie, Patricia Interviewing a Makerspace Staff  .......... 126  Figure 5.7. Girls Interacting with Power Tools 1  ........................................................... 127 Figure 5.8. Girls Interacting with Power Tools 2  ........................................................... 128  Figure 5.9. Youth Chanting "Makerspace, Makerspace, We Want a Makerspace!" ......  128  Figure 5.10. Creating "Our M4C Makerspace Manifesto"  ............................................. 130  Figure 5.11. ÒOur M4C Makerspace ManifestoÓ ...........................................................  130  Figure 5.12. A Whiteboard Wall ...................................................................................   133  Figure 5.13. Power Outlets Hanging from the Ceiling ...................................................  133  Figure 5.14. Patricia and Ashlee's Planning Document  ................................................  136  Figure 5.15. A Teach GroupÕs Movie .............................................................................  137  Figure 5.16. A Slide from the Teach GroupÕs PowerPoint Presentation ......................... 137  Figure 5.17. The "Phantom Jacket," a Slide from the Show GroupÕs PowerPoint Presentation ..................................................................................................................... 139  Figure 5.18. Last Slide in PowerPoint Presentation by the Show Group .......................  140  Figure 5.19. Design of New Makerspace Created in Google SketchUp  ........................ 141  Figure 5.20. A 3D Model of a Makerspace Created by College Students .....................  142  Figure 5.21. 3D Play-doh Model of the New Makerspace .............................................  142  Figure 5.22. Youth Conducting Their Workshop to Board Members at the BGC .........  145  Figure 5.23. Board Members Building Electric Circuits with LittleBits Kits ................. 145  1 CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION This is my phantom jacket and we have a design on it so it wonÕt be plain and it looks like a phantom, like a ghost. And then we have wind turbines on it so it sends, like when we get a powerful wind, it spins and it sends energy to our alarm and it gives the power to the battery so it can work. . . . Yeah, and so people walk and sometimes they say itÕs not safe to walk. So itÕs like 75 percent of people that walk, and they say itÕs not safe to walk, so I just thought IÕd kind of make the jacket for them. And so it will keep them safe so they donÕt get hurt when they walk. . . . I think it [phantom jacket] says that I care about people and about their safety. I care about the city and keeping it safe. (Samuel, artifact interview, May, 13, 2015)     Samuel, a 7th grader who regularly attends the makerspace at his local boys and girls club, designed a prototype of the Òphantom jacketÓ over a period of eight months. His phantom jacket has a noisemaker on it so that if someone tries to bully him, he can press the button on the noisemaker to set off an alarm. The jacket uses wind energy from wind turbines on the shoulders to power the noisemaker. The wind turbines send energy to the rechargeable batteries, where it is stored for later use.   The idea for a phantom jacket grew out of his desire to make sure that he and his peers had safe commutes to school and to each otherÕs houses. Samuel surveyed people in his community about safety issues, and discovered that safe transportation was an important issue to over 74% of the respondents. As a responsible member of the community, Samuel wanted to help people by designing the phantom jacket to keep them   2 safe. With the help of mentors in the makerspace, Samuel developed the phantom jacket by engaging in scientific investigations (e.g., he determined the distance from the jacket that the alarm can be heard and the best position for the wind turbines to get the best air flow) and community investigations (e.g., to make the jacket look cool and maximize comfort). He also had opportunities to receive feedback on his jacket from experts (e.g., engineers, scientists, and inventors), community members, and his peer group.   In the process of designing the jacket, Samuel also considered both the environmental and economic concerns of his local and global communities. He decided to power the noisemaker attached to the jacket with wind turbines because he did not want to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which contributes to climate change. Moreover, the rechargeable batteries necessary for the wind turbines would benefit the community economically. He also made the jacket fashionable with an image of a phantom on the front, a hood on the back, and a sleek black color. Over eight months, Samuel iteratively developed, refined, constructed, and tested the design of the phantom jacket in the makerspace. Samuel believed that his working prototype shows that he cares about the safety of the people of his city.     As a mentor and a research assistant who has worked in the community-based makerspace that Samuel joined for approximately two years, I have met many talented youth makers like Samuel who have innovative ideas and engage in projects that show they care about people and the environment. I have witnessed these youth makers expertise in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and in their community. They also creatively leveraged and merged various ideas, practices, and tools in their projects as they navigated their makerspace and their social worlds, such as home,   3 school, and community. By listening to their voices and stories, I was able to rethink about what counts as making, as being a maker, and as makerspaces.   My experience working with the youth makers for past two years has allowed me to recognize some of the challenges inherent in the recent spread of the maker movement and in the efforts to bring the movement into STEM education. A major effort has been a concerted attempt to provide young people with access to makerspaces. The makerspace, also referred to a hackspace or a Fab Lab, refers broadly to a physical workspace where individuals engage in designing and making objects by using shared tools, materials, and equipment (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Martinez & Stager, 2013; Peppler & Bender, 2013). The number of makerspaces has grown rapidly over the past few years, and more young people can now visit makerspaces in public libraries, science centers, and schools throughout their communities (Peppler & Bender, 2013).   However, despite efforts to increase access to makerspaces, there is little evidence that makerspaces have been successful in involving a diverse community of participants. Scholars have noted that both makerspace participation and culture are overwhelmingly dominated by White, middle-class, adult males (Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014; Brahms & Crowley, 2014). Despite the growing number of makerspaces, this trend does not appear to be changing. If we want all youth to benefit from this new culture of learning by making, it is vital to understand how to benefit all youth by making makerspaces more inclusive and how such inclusiveness matters to youth learning, identity, and agency. Little research has been done thus far to explore such equity issues.      4 Purpose and Research Questions  The purpose of this study is to explore the stories of experienced youth makers who have participated in activities in a community-based makerspace. Foregrounding the voices and experiences of youth who participated in the Making 4 Change (M4C) program at a community-based makerspace in a mid-western city in the United States from October 2013 to August 2015, I seek to understand what an equity-oriented makerspace might look like and how and why it matters to youth learning, identity, and agency. Furthermore, I intend to explore how and why youth critique the design of makerspaces in their community, and how they would take evidence-based actions in order to design a novel youth-centered community-based makerspace. The research questions guiding this work are as follows:   1. In what practices do youth engage in a community-based makerspace? How and why do youth engage in such practices?  2. What does youth engagement in practices tell us about their learning, identity, and agency in makerspaces?    3. How can a community-based makerspace function as a more open, accessible, and engaging learning environment as a part of a youth learning ecology?  4.  How and why do youth critique the design of makerspaces in their community, and how would they design a youth-centered community-based makerspace?   Significance   Given the increasing interest in introducing makerspaces in informal educational settings, a lack of dialog on how to do so equitably may consistently discourage youth   5 from non-dominant communities from participating in the maker movement and makerspaces. Such determent may reduce opportunities for youth to engage in learning by making, which can lead to productive STEM learning, identity development, and innovative and creative works. Moreover, the extremely low proportion of youth from non-dominant communities in the maker movement and in makerspaces may unfairly reinforce deficit views or stereotypes regarding the capabilities and intelligence of youth from non-dominant communities in STEM, which in turn may further influence the perception of youth participants regarding who can make/STEM and who can be makers/STEM experts. This may also be used to justify discrimination against or oppression of youth from non-dominant communities in the STEM education system. Given the rapid spread of makerspaces in informal educational settings, it is critical to discuss how best to design inclusive makerspaces. This dissertation will contribute to the cause by promoting and expanding conversations about equity issues in makerspaces and by developing theories and practices for designing more inclusive makerspaces.   Dissertation Structure  I conducted three interrelated studies to address my research questions. The first study explores how and why young people frame engineering problems in a community-based makerspace within the discourse of public goodÑwhere learning STEM involves a commitment to community sustainability, and the incorporation of green energy technologies into design is situated as a part of larger systemic response to climate change. Using expansive learning theory and a longitudinal ethnographic case study, I examine how and why two youths designed and prototyped a solar-powered cell phone   6 case charger, and how the ways in which the two youths merged their cultural funds of knowledge with engineering design shaped their engineering design work. This study is designed to answer my overarching research questions #1 and #2. I report this study in the chapter three.   The second study examines what practices youth engage in at a community-based makerspace, and how and why they engage in such practices. This study also explores what youth engagement in these practices tells us about the design of inclusive makerspaces for youth from non-dominant communities. Using the mobilities of learning theory, this critical ethnographic study explores the stories of two groups of youths engaged in making items that are related to safety and environmental issues in their communities. This work is intended to answer my overarching research questions #1, #2 and #3. I report this study in the chapter four.   Finally, The third study investigates how youth frame the importance of a youth-centered and community-based makerspace through engaging in Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR), and what their engagement in YPAR tells us about their desired identities and practices in making/engineering. Guided by the YPAR framework, this study examines the process and results of a YPAR project involving 16 youths who researched the design features of local makerspaces, then designed a new youth-centered and community-based makerspace at a local afterschool club. This study is designed to address my overarching research question #4. I report this study in the chapter five.   In the chapter two, I describe the overarching literature relevant to three studies. I address overall implication of all three studies in the chapter six.      7 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW  In this chapter, I begin by giving an overview of the maker movement and makerspaces. I then provide summaries of studies of makerspaces for STEM education, followed by a description of studies of equity issues in makerspaces. Finally, I discuss the limitations of previous studies.   Maker Movement and Makerspaces  The maker movement refers to the trend in which a growing number of people are engaged in making physical or digital artifacts for use in their daily lives, and then sharing their processes and products with others in on- and off-line communities of makers (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Peppler & Bender, 2013; Martinez & Stager, 2013). Though humans have been engaged in making since their appearance on Earth (e.g., making hunting tools with stone and wood), the maker movement refers specifically to the recent phenomenon in which individuals design and make things such as electrical gadgets, crafts, robots, and apparel by employing new digital and physical tools and materials. Due to new advances in technology, individuals now have access to cutting-edge and professional-grade digital fabrication and hardware tools needed to design and make physical objects at low cost. Mark Hatch (2013), the CEO of Techshop, has argued that one of the keys to the maker movement is the Òdemocratizing impact of access to the tools one needs to make thingsÓ (p. 7), which allows almost anyone to make and innovate. This maker movement has encouraged individuals to become active producers of products rather than passive consumers of products made by commercial corporations or institutions. Aligning with national efforts to increase the numbers of highly educated   8 workers and high-quality businesses in STEM fields in the interest of economic competitiveness and national security, the maker movement has recently been spotlighted by politicians, policymakers, and educators.   Although there is no clear consensus on when this movement emerged or who ignited it, the maker movement has been drawing attention from the U.S. public since Make: magazine was launched and the first ÒMaker FaireÓ was hosted in California a decade ago. Make: magazine, the bimonthly magazine for Do-It-Yourself (DIY) makers, has offered a space in which individuals can learn the latest details about cutting-edge technology and pioneering DIY projects in woodworking, electronics, computers, arts and crafts, and robotics (Makezine, 2015). With the construction of online communities of makers (e.g., instructables.com, DIY.org, and Makezine.com), Make: magazine has enabled makers to show their projects to others and to learn new ideas and skills from each other. Maker Faire is a showcase for makers to introduce their inventions and DIY projects to other makers or to the local public (Makezine, 2015). This event has allowed makers to come together and celebrate their achievements in designing and building creative and innovative projects. Maker Faire has also provided opportunities in which makers can create connections to local human or material resources that might support them in turning their projects or ideas into business goods. Make: magazine and Maker Faire have contributed to the rapid spread of the maker movement by taking makers and their projects out of their garages and basements and encouraging them to share their inventions and projects with others.     A makerspace is another key component of the maker movement. The makerspace, also referred to as a hackerspace or a Fab Lab, refers broadly to a physical   9 workspace where individuals engage in designing their projects by employing shared physical or digital tools, materials, and resources (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Martinez & Stager, 2013; Peppler & Bender, 2013). In a makerspace, individuals have access to professional-grade tools and materials (e.g., 3D printers, laser cutters, digital fabrication software, etc.) that were previously available only to experts (e.g., engineers, scientists, and inventors). Some of makerspace provide workshops or educational programs where individuals can learn cutting-edge technical skills and ideas for their making projects. Perhaps just as importantly, the makerspace offers a social space where makers can meet and collaborate, and it serves as an on-ramp for anyone interested in becoming a maker in the local community (Dougherty, 2015).   Various types of makerspaces exist: for-profit commercial makerspaces (e.g., Techshop) vs. non-profit public makerspaces (e.g., The Tinkering Studio in Exploratorium); adult-oriented makerspaces vs. youth/kid-oriented makerspaces; and makerspaces in public libraries, science centers, and museums vs. makerspaces in schools and colleges. While makerspaces are different in terms of who participates, where they are located, and what they are for, Sheridan and colleagues (2014) analyzed features of makerspaces and noticed that they share a common ethos suggesting that they should be categorized as the same kind of space:  [M]akerspaces as being multidisciplinary both in approach and in work produced, as blending formal learning environments and informal communities of practices, and as being focused on learning as production rather than as mastery of a composite set of skills (p. 526).     10 Sheridan and colleagues (2014) also argued that the multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary environment of makerspaces has extended individualsÕ engagement in designing projects and expanded the range of skills they employ, which can lead to innovative and creative work. The researchers also noted that the makerspace participants valued the processes involved in making. As individuals engage in tinkering, figuring things out, or playing with tools and materials, they often find productive ideas to improve their projects (Sheridan et al., 2014). Sheridan and colleagues (2014) believed that learning by making in the makerspace extended beyond the learning from more constrained making activities based on a teacher-centered approach:  Being a maker in the makerspaces involves participating in a space with diverse tools, materials, and processes; finding problems and projects to work on; iterating through design; becoming a member of a community; taking on leadership and teaching roles as needed; and sharing creations and skills with a wider world (p. 529).   Thus, it is not appropriate to view the makerspace as solely a physical space with diverse tools, materials, and resources for makers. Rather, makerspaces should be viewed as communities of practice of makers where individuals share common values, norms, and interests and participate in core practices regarding making (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Brahms, 2014). This perspective on the makerspace requires us to regard individualsÕ engagement in activities in makerspaces (including learning processes) as social practices and as part of the on-going process of becoming a full member of the community.     11  Makerspaces and STEM Education   With the spread of the maker movement, there have been efforts to bring it into the field of STEM education to encourage more young people to engage in STEM learning and to inspire them to pursue STEM majors and careers. Proponents of the maker movement have argued that learning by making has the power to reshape traditional STEM education in schoolsÑan education that often positioned students as passive consumers of knowledge, that focused on rote reproduction of knowledge, and that was too distanced from studentsÕ everyday lives (Martinez & Stager, 2013; Dougherty, 2015; Gershenfeld, 2007). These advocates believe that the maker movement has the potential to reconstruct our understanding of what counts as learning, what counts as a learner, and what counts as a learning environment (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014).   A key component of bringing the maker movement into STEM education is to provide young people with access to makerspaces. The number of makerspaces in informal and formal settings has increased rapidly for the past few years, and more young people now visit makerspaces in public libraries, science centers, and schools throughout their communities (Peppler & Bender, 2013). Spurred by the growth of makerspaces for youth, researchers began studying how access to makerspaces influences youthsÕ STEM learning and identity formation (Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014). Although still in a nascent stage, such empirical studies on makerspaces can generally be divided into three categories: 1) the features of makerspaces as STEM learning environments, 2) how participation in making or tinkering influences youth learning and development in STEM, and 3) diversity and equity issues in makerspaces.    12  The Features of Makerspace as STEM Learning Environments. First, a few empirical studies on makerspaces have focused on unveiling the features of makerspaces as STEM learning environments. Such studies have broadly explored what makerspaces are made up of, what core practices members engage in, and how such practices link to STEM learning. Litts (2015), for example, explores and compares the characteristics of three youth makerspaces: afterschool club-, museum-, and library-based makerspaces. This study illustrates how these three makerspaces differ as learning environments in terms of activity (i.e., what happens there?), identity (i.e., what identities are taken up and supported?), and community (i.e., what is the community context and structure?). While features of the three makerspaces vary significantly, Litts finds four cross-cutting features in terms of activity structure, resources for making, equipping facilitators, and community ethos. This study highlights three scale-units of activities that exist in youth makerspacesÑmicro-introductory, limited kit-like, and open-endedÑand shows how the facilitatorsÕ disciplinary expertise (e.g., engineering or science backgrounds) has an impact on youthsÕ making experience. In addition, this study identifies the existence of Òthree design stances (aesthetic, functional, and pragmatic)Ó (p. 127), which are defined by goals and product features and inspired by disciplinary practices. That is, with an aesthetic design stance inspired by arts, youth make something that looks cool. With a functional design stance inspired by engineering, youth make something that works, and with a pragmatic design stance inspired by architecture, youth make something that solves a problem (Litts, 2015).   Brahms (2014) identifies a set of seven core learning practices of in a maker community 1) explore and question; 2) tinker, test, and iterate; 3) seek out resources; 4)   13 hack and repurpose; 5) combine and complexify; 6) customize; and 7) share. Brahms then explores how children who visit a museum-based makerspace enact the core learning practices and what factors support the childrenÕs productive participation in making as a learning process. This study also shows that childrenÕs participation in core learning practices constructs meaningful learning, including the development of relevant skills and knowledge.   Sheridan and colleagues (2014) examine how makerspaces function as learning environments. This study describes features of three makerspaces and how those makerspaces support participants to identify problems, build models, learn and apply skills, revise ideas, and share knowledge with others. In particular, Sheridan et al. argue that the three makerspaces share an ethos despite their varying features. First, makerspacesÕ multidisciplinarity fuels participantsÕ engagement and innovation. That is, the blending of traditional and up-to-date skills and knowledge creates a learning environment with multiple entry points to participation and leads to innovative combinations, juxtapositions, and uses of disciplinary knowledge and skills. Second, makerspaces have a marked diversity of learning arrangement. In other words, the size and scale of observed projects ranges from a toddler spending minutes with a sewing card, to a youth spending weeks building a motorized car, to a team of experts spending years on high-altitude balloon launches. Third, learning in makerspaces is in, and for, the making. Makerspaces value the process of making, which includes tinkering, figuring things out, and playing with materials or tools.   How Participation in Making or Tinkering Influences Youth Learning and Development in STEM. A second category of research on makerspaces has examined   14 how participation in making or tinkering influences youth learning and development in STEM. Such empirical studies have shown that making or tinkering in makerspaces impacts youth engagement with STEM, acquiring STEM knowledge and practices, and identity formation in STEM.   Bevan and colleagues (2015) argue that tinkering, a branch of making that stresses improvisational problem solving, supports STEM learning in the museum-based makerspace. Bevan at al. document what learning actually looks like in a tinkering program, and they develop a new conceptual framework to better understand young visitorsÕ learning by STEM-related tinkering. The conceptual framework specifies four categories of learning dimensions: 1) engagement, 2) initiative and intentionality, 3) social scaffolding, and 4) development of understanding. This study also provides indicators of each dimension for informal science educators and practitioners to actually capture the moment when young peopleÕs learning happens through tinkering. With the engagement dimension, for example, the indicators include Òspending time in tinkering activities,Ó and Òdisplaying motivation or investment through affect or behaviorÓ (p. 7). Interestingly, the researchers co-developed the learning dimensions with practitioners who worked in informal educational settings throughout the research process. They called this process Òjointly negotiated researchÓ (p. 4), and both researchers and practitioners shaped the studyÕs questions, methods, and interpretation of data.   Kafai and colleagues (2014) explore how high school students engage in e-textile designs in a public magnet school. These researchers make the claim that three themes of e-textile designÑtransparency, aesthetics, and genderÑare key to supporting youth in learning through making:     15 The pairing of crafting with circuitry and programmingÑall historically gendered technologies (Ensmenger, 2010)Ñplays a key role in making computing transparent, facilitating functional aesthetics that support learning, and supporting new visions for participation across traditionally gendered boundaries (p. 536). In particular, Kafai et al. emphasize that inclusion of aesthetics plays a crucial role in student engagement with e-textile designs and learning STEM by creating a culturally inclusive learning environment for underrepresented populations in computing (e.g., female students)   Vossoughi and Bevan (2014), in reviewing the literature on making and tinkering in out-of-school STEM learning environments, offer an extensive summary of the research on how making and tinkering experiences influence youth interest in, engagement with, and understanding of STEM. First, the literature highlights the fact that making can support young peopleÕs participation and sense of belonging in STEM through 1) supporting new intellectual dispositions and identities, 2) connecting making activities to familiar practices, and 3) advancing young peopleÕs agency and authorship. Second, the literature shows that making can support young peopleÕs learning and development through 1) contextualizing STEM concepts and practices in meaningful activity, 2) cultivating interdisciplinary practices, and 3) encouraging intellectual risk-taking, experimentation, and iteration. Third, the literature demonstrates that making can create supportive communities of practice through 1) encouraging collaboration and sharing, and 2) treating expert/novice roles as fluid.   Nazar et al. (2015) illustrate how youth engagement in engineering design in a makerspace creates Òcritical epistemic momentsÓ (p. 17), where new hybrid   16 epistemological tools are created for the purpose of advancing youth learning. By illustrating AnnaÕs engagement in engineering design for her ÒFANcy HatÓ Ð a hat with a solar-powered fan Ð Nazar et al. highlight the importance of creating makerspaces where youth have the freedom to merge their science/engineering knowledge and practices and their funds of knowledge for their making projects.    Diversity, Equity, and Makerspaces. The third category of research addresses diversity and equity issues in makerspaces. The few existing studies in this category have criticized the fact that the make movement and makerspaces have not been successful in involving diverse groups of participants. Makerspaces have been largely dominated by a certain demographic (i.e., white, middle-class, adult males), and of particular importance, numerous young people who have historically been marginalized from traditional STEM educational systems (e.g., African Americans, female students, and youth from low-income families) have not had equal access to makerspaces (TASCHA, 2012). Thus, it is crucial that we provide all youth with access to makerspaces if we want them to benefit from learning by making.    Some scholars, however, urge us to see beyond issues of access. Vossoughi and Bevan (2014) point out that if making and makerspaces are by nature democratizing (i.e., anyone can make) as proponents of the maker movement have claimed, we must question the current culture of maker communities, makerspaces, and making programs, which have been overwhelmingly dominated by the work, ideas, and images of middle class white men. Thus, Vossoughi and Bevan urge researchers and practitioners to answer the following questions as they design makerspaces or making programs for young people:    17 Whose forms of making count as making? Whose values and goals inform definitions of making? In what ways are young people being invited to identify as the type of maker represented by the brand in order to participate in making (p. 39)?   Furthermore, Vossoughi and Bevan point out that emphasizing terms like self-directed learning, independent learning, and celebrating failure in makerspaces without providing appropriate supports for newcomers unfamiliar with the culture can be discouraging. Although these researchers see the potential in making a shift from traditional STEM education to learner-centered education, they warn us that such phrases can be used to attribute the struggles of newcomers to insufficient capabilities or intelligence in STEM (often associated with the deficit view of youth from non-dominant communities) rather than to a lack of support from makerspaces.   In their empirical study, Calabrese Barton, Tan, and Greenberg (accepted) explored how youth from non-dominant communities engage in the process of making in afterschool community-based makerspaces. They found three different forms of youth engagement Ð critical, connected and collective Ð that support youthsÕ sustained engagement in makerspaces. For many youths, such engagement is about critically attending to the issues that frame their young lives (e.g., sexual violence or bullies); about connecting their making with others and to broader social issues; and about engaging in collectively formed interests that are often associated with issues of race, power, oppression and danger. In the study, such forms of engagement shaped the ways in which   18 the youth addressed the design problems they sought to solve, and the solutions they developed.    Limitations of Previous Studies  Aside from the studies noted above, little work has been done to explore how best to design inclusive makerspaces beyond the issue of access. In particular, most studies have not attended to the power dynamics of makerspaces that may influence youth participation, learning, and identity formation. While youth may engage in making and may learn new knowledge or practices in makerspaces, it is crucial to recognize the role of power in this process. If newcomers (especially youth from non-dominant communities) want to participate in making, they have to do so faced with the normative view of making or of makers that has been constructed over time (e.g., that white adults are makers). Newcomers may be forced to respond to, negotiate with, or challenge the existing power structure and privilege of the culture of makerspaces, making, and its core members. Furthermore, as youth from non-dominant communities participate in makerspaces, they may have to fight negative stereotypes and cultural deficit views unfairly imposed on them (Shin, Calabrese Barton, & Johnson, in press). This process is messy, complex, and dynamic, and though previous studies have investigated the process of youth participation, learning, and identity formation, they have not successfully captured how the power dynamics of makerspaces impact that process.  Also of concern is that most studies have been guided by a narrow notion of learning and identity. Existing studies mainly explore what and how youth learn and form identity in makerspaces based on the theories of constructivism (Piaget),   19 constructionism (Papert), or communities of practice (Lave & Wenger). Although these learning theories have offered useful theoretical frameworks to understand the process of learning and identity development within makerspaces, they are limited in their power to explain how and why participants bring their ideas, practices, and tools acquired through navigating other communities of practice (e.g., homes, schools, communities, and non-STEM disciplines) into makerspaces. In particular, existing research does not account for the process of re-purposing or re-mixing varied factual and experiential knowledge that participants bring into makerspacesÑknowledge that may lead to innovative and creative projects. For decades, scholars on STEM education have shown that non-traditional STEM knowledge and experiences (e.g., funds of knowledge, everyday experiences, community resources, and cultural knowledge and practices) that youth from non-dominant communities bring to science classrooms or informal settings play a significant role in promoting their interest and engagement in STEM and in developing their STEM-related identities (Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2009; Moje et al., 2001; Warren et al, 2001; Upadhay, 2006). Furthermore, researchers have shown that youthsÕ merging or hybridizing traditional STEM and non-traditional STEM concepts and skills can lead to deep and productive STEM learning (Calabrese Barton, Tan, & Rivet, 2008; Gonsalves et al., 2013). Therefore, if we want to design makerspaces that are transformative and inclusive STEM learning environments where youth can create innovative ideas by leveraging and transforming their knowledge and experiences, it is necessary to expand our learning frameworks to explain youthsÕ movement and transformation of knowledge and experiences.    20  Third, little work has been done to incorporate youth voice, ideas, and perspectives in designing or developing makerspaces. More often than not, makerspaces for youth have been designed and developed by researchers and adult practitioners. Studies of makerspaces have also been conducted solely by researchers or by researchers in collaboration with practitioners (see Bevan et al., 2014). Though researchers and practitioners have analyzed data regarding youth engagement and learning in makerspaces and have attempted to use their analyses to reflect on the effective development of makerspaces, there has been little effort to include youth as stakeholders in the design and development of their own makerspaces. This raises several important questions: Who is this space for? Who better than youth to know and to talk about what makes them feel welcomed and inclusive in makerspaces? If our focus is to design inclusive makerspaces for all youth, why donÕt we listen to them? And why donÕt we give them the power to design and develop their own makerspaces?  Finally, most of the previous studies on makerspaces have been conducted over relatively short time periods, from a few hours to a few weeks. Although such short-term studies have offered insightful thoughts about the design of makerspaces, they are very limited in capturing the full picture of youthsÕ engagement, learning, identity and agency, which constitutes key information about designing makerspaces for all youths. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct longitudinal studies in this field.        21 CHAPTER THREE INNOVATING WITH AND FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD: YOUTHÕS ENGINEERING DESIGN AND HYBRIDITY  Introduction  Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education has risen to the to the top of the national agenda. The U.S. government is spending billions of dollars annually on STEM-related education initiatives. This renewed attention has been largely driven by the discourses of national security and economic concerns amidst increasing global competition. In federal policy, AmericaÕs position in the world is described as being threatened by Òcomparatively few American students pursu[ing] expertise in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematicsÓ (US Department of Education, 2015).   This neoliberal imperative erodes the more humanitarian and justice oriented goals of STEM education, including the importance of multiple perspectives and experiences in expanding and advancing the fields of STEM, the role of STEM in promoting local and global sustainability, or the importance of access to STEM for community advancement. STEM is for national advancement rather than any sense of collective responsibility in using STEM towards building the public good (Bencze & Carter, 2011).   In this paper, I examine engineering design work of two youth, which push back against these trends. In particular, I investigate how and why youth frame engineering problems in a community-based makerspace within the discourse of public good Ð where learning STEM involves a commitment to community sustainability, and the   22 incorporation of green energy technologies into design are situated as a part of larger systemic response to climate change. My research questions include:  ¥ How and why do youth define problems and design solutions when engaged in engineering for sustainable communities?  ¥ How do the ways in which the two youths merge their cultural funds of knowledge with engineering design shape their engineering design work?  Engineering Practice for Sustainable Communities  Engineering for sustainable communities pays particular attention to the special vulnerabilities of communities, the ethical dimensions of defining problems and proposing solutions, and the importance of humanitarian action-taking (NRC, 2010). Engineers deal with problems and design solutions for the real world, and often tackle difficult, interdisciplinary problems that are grounded in conflict, crisis and disaster. Examples range from local problems of building architecture to global concerns such as water quality and access.   Such design problems are often tied to human rights, economics, and oppression, and they have both technological and social dimensions. Engineering design for sustainable communities requires the inclusion of community-based and participatory forms of research as part of the engineering design process. They require the engineer to ask, ÒWho is the project for? Whose knowledge counts? Who takes part in problem definition, data collection, interpretation, and analysis? Who takes action? Who owns the project?Ó (NRC, 2010, p. 8). How engineers are taught to examine and incorporate these concerns shapes how their solutions impact both the individual and society. Opportunities   23 for Òprospective and retrospectiveÓ reflection to make sense of the implications of interactions among technological and social dimensions as well as self-critical reflection Òabout what it means to be an engineerÓ (p. 14) are essential.  In my approach to engineering for sustainable communities I focus on two engineering practices: 1) defining problems, and 2) designing solutions. These practices align with two core engineering practices identified in current reform initiatives as important to teach young people (NGSS, 2013). They also provide opportunities to bridge engineering work with empowering community engagement (Nieusma &Tang, 2012). In other words, how problems are defined, by whom, and for what purposes require engineering and community expertise (NRC, 2010).   Defining Problems  I am interested in supporting youth in more precisely understanding a design taskÕs boundaries, including its criteria and constraints. I am also concerned with how they navigate both scientific and community knowledge to specify and expand or limit movement towards possible solutions. I view the process of defining a problem as ongoing, ill-defined, and highly complex. As particular solutions are discussed, tested and modified, and communicated, the problem space becomes clearer and more finely constrained while also taking on layers of complexity.   Designing Solutions   I am interested in how this practice supports youth in systematically refining their understanding of the problem and its design constraints as well as in evaluating their   24 possible solutions in light of their increasing understandings of the problem space (from social and technological perspectives). I operationalize this practice to include discussing a range of solutions based on scientific knowledge and evidence, constructing a device, and designing and conducting tests for solutions. I view continuous communication with stakeholders as elemental to this practice. My reasons are threefold: First, studies show that reflective moments such as these provide the intellectual space for youth to deepen understanding of the design problem (Schunn et al, 2012). Second, communicating with stakeholders (e.g., community members) requires youth to a) continue to consider their needs/concerns, and b) re-organize their understanding of the problem space and its solutions in ways that are culturally resonant. Third, community dialog positions youth as both community experts and engineering experts in support of identity work.    Expansive Learning  This study is grounded in an expansive view of learning (Engestrım & Sannino, 2010, Engestrım, 2001). This perspective challenges settled notions of what it means to participate in practice within a community by making visible the boundaries of formal/informal, novice/expert, and past/present/future, and how these boundaries change over time and across scale. This perspective also emphasizes the importance of learning that which is Ònot yet thereÓ (Engestrım & Sannino, 2010, p. 2). Different from a more widely promoted view of learning as either participation or acquisition, expansive learning emphasizes Òtransformation and creation of culture, on horizontal movement and hybridizationÓ and the formation of Ònew objects and concepts for their collective activityÓ (Engestrım & Sannino, 2010, p. 2).    25  Traditional modes of STEM learning (especially engineering design learning) focus on tasks and outcomes where the content to be learned is predetermined by those in positions of epistemic authority. However, even when there may be core ideas or practices that are central to a task, how and why they get taken up, or in what order, is shaped by the design process and what students bring to that process. The process of designÑincluding both iteratively constraining the design problem and optimizing solutionsÑinvolves the integration of the ongoing design of the new activity and the acquisition of knowledge and skills. Instead of a sole focus on vertical movement across levels (e.g., novice to expert), learning is viewed as horizontal movement across borders, where ideas, practices, and tools are re-purposed and re-mixed toward new meanings and possibilities for becoming (Engestrım & Sannino, 2010).   A central aspect of expansive learning is that through learning activity, new activity structures are produced, leading to new forms of activity. Guti”rrez describes these new forms of activity as the kinds of hybridity that emerge as the tensions and contradictions that arise within and between activity systems (Guti”rrez, Baquedano LŠpez & Tajeda, 1999). Here, hybridity refers to the novel combinations of different repertoires of knowledge and practice (e.g., science and peer/family/community) as individuals horizontally move ideas and practices. However, it also refers to the hybridity that exists at multiple levels of the learning environment, where many activity systems come together (e.g., science, student, teacher, schooling, etc.). This perspective, thus, allows us to better understand youthÕs horizontal movement and hybridization toward engineering designs that are both meaningful from a disciplinary perspective and compelling to youth committed to the public good.    26  I am also interested in when, how, and why youth leverage home, community, and peer-based funds of knowledgeÑi.e., that which generally resides outside of traditional STEM learning activity systemsÑin ways integral to their engineering design. YouthÕs funds of knowledge refers to the historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills gained through participation in activities or interactions that take place in their home, peer groups, community, or popular culture (Gonz⁄lez, Moll, & Amanti, 2013; Moje et al., 2004). Studies on funds of knowledge have shown that such funds are abundant, diverse, complex, and layered due to youthÕs diverse participation in activities or interactions in context (Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2009). Furthermore, youthÕs funds of knowledge often play a role in validating youthÕs identities as experts who can use such knowledge as a foundation for their learning.   Methods  My work is grounded in a longitudinal ethnographic case study approach to study youthsÕ engagement in engineering design projects in the Green Club program from September 2013 to May 2014. I believe that the approach of a longitudinal case study is appropriate for this study because it enables in-depth exploration of social phenomena that change and develop over time, and also allows for holistic analysis of social phenomena when the boundaries between phenomena and context are not clearly evident (Yin, 2013).       27 Context and Participants   The study was conducted in Great Lake City, Michigan. The region is an urban area that was hit hard by economic recessions and the subsequent population decline experienced across the state (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). The research was initiated during an after-school integrated STEM program called Green Club, which is hosted by the local Boys and Girls Club (BGC) and a local university. Youth attended sessions twice a week from 2013 to 2014. Most of the participants of the Green Club program also attend public schools in Great Lake City.   The club members of particular interest in this research are two African American young adults, Quentin and Caitlyn, who joined the 2013Ð2014 initiatives of Green Club. Quentin is a male 7th grader (aged 12) who has been participating in the Green Club program for two years. He lives with his single mother and two siblings. Given that his mother worked as a part-time office worker at the BGC, QuentinÕs membership in the club during his 5th grade was a natural progression. After school, he would go to the BGC and spend most of his time attending club activities, including those spearheaded by the Green Club program. He would also play with his siblings while his mom worked.   Quentin is viewed by the staff and other BGC youth members as a social and witty individual. He is always the first to help his peers and younger children who are in trouble. In contrast to his male friends, Quentin has good relationships with many female members and often works with female youth groups during Green Club activities. From 2013 to 2014, he partnered with Caitlyn and collaborated with her on an engineering design project.     28  Caitlyn is a female 9th grader (aged 14) who has been a program participant for four years. She lives with her single mother, who worked as a president of the BGC, and an older sister. As with Quentin, Caitlyn became a BGC member at an early age. Given that her older sister studied under the auspices of the Green Club program for a couple of years, Caitlyn occasionally had opportunities to witness program activities and became interested in joining. In her 5th grade, she acquired membership in the BGC and has regularly participated in Green Club initiatives for the past four years.   BGC staff and youth members regard Caitlyn as a smart, diligent, and meticulous individual. She often serves as one of the clubÕs youth leaders because of her outstanding academic achievements in school and at the BGC. As a senior participant in the program, Caitlyn not only actively engages in activities but also frequently volunteers to assist her contemporaries or younger club members.   As part of their participation in Green Club projects, Quentin and Caitlyn collaborated in designing Òa solar-powered cell phone case chargerÓ with rotatable solar cells. The device can fully charge an iPhone 5. The two members were chosen as study subjects because of their willingness to share their stories regarding their engineering design initiatives. I, as a group mentor, closely observed and interacted with the aforementioned individuals. I supported them as they developed their engineering design and provided guidance throughout the entire design process.       29 Green Club: Engineering Design for Sustainable Communities and Expansive Learning  Focusing on designing solutions for community concerns using the Next Generation Science Standards framework of engineering practices, the Green Club program supported the youth in their engagement with engineering design and in productive identity development in engineering. During 2013Ð2014, Green Club met twice a week (90 minutes per session) during the school year.   During the 2013Ð2104 school year, the youth in the Green Club program were charged with the design task of creating a portable energy system for sustainable communities. During this time the youth studied the problem of portable energy in their community, and they developed engineering design solutions meant to solve problems related to portable energy and the needs of their community. The youthÕs project focused on portable power because this was an area that was accessible to youth and relevant to their everyday lives. Portable electronics are easy to carry and often easy to take apart; furthermore, youth are constantly seeking to charge their phones, tablets, or gaming toys. Because of these aspects, I believed that portable power was amenable to close-up study, enabling understanding that can then be applied to design.   The youth were specifically supported in the design challenged through activities that focused on two engineering practices: 1) defining problems and 2) designing solutions (NGSS Lead States, 2013). These practices are important because they help youth in more precisely understanding a design taskÕs boundaries, including its criteria and constraints, through the collection and analysis of scientific- and social-oriented data.  These practices also help youth in systematically evaluating their possible solutions in   30 light of their increasing understanding of the problem space (from social and technological perspectives). Taken together, these practices help youth see the process of engineering design as ongoing, loosely-defined, and highly complex. As particular solutions are discussed, tested, modified, and communicated, the problem space becomes clearer and more finely constrained while also taking on layers of complexity.   Data Generation and Analysis  Qualitative data were collected from multiple sources, including participant observations, conversation groups, artifact-think aloud interviews, and student artifact collections. Participant observations were conducted in Green Club twice a week from September 2013 to May 2014, and each observation was videotaped, transcribed, and accompanied by field notes. I also held weekly conversation groups with a subset of youth (two hours/week) as a way to debrief what was happening in the club as well as to plan for future activities. A six-week segment of the conversation group also focused on how and why youth shifted their design; what repertoires of knowledge and practices youth drew upon or leveraged for their design; and how youth positioned themselves in engaging in the engineering design process. In addition to these conversations, I conducted artifact-think aloud interviews twice during the year, providing youth with opportunities to talk about their engineering design work in detail. I also collected all youthsÕ artifacts, including their sketch notebook, 3D computer models, and prototypes (Table 3.1).     31 Table 3.1. Data Generation Data Form Specific Data Generation Strategy Participant Observation ¥ Afterschool STEM program (Green Club): Video recordings of twice weekly sessions and field notes (48 sessions, 72 hours) ¥ Green Club Community Events (Feedback cycle day, presentations at the art museum, fieldtrip to local college campus, etc.): Video recordings of events and field notes (three events, six hours) Conversation Group ¥ As a way to debrief what was happening in the club and to plan for future activities (18 weeks, 36 hours)  ¥ Six-week segment of the conversation group focused primarily on how and why youth shifted their design; what funds of knowledge or STEM knowledge youth drew upon or leveraged for their design; and how youth positioned themselves in engaging in the engineering design process Artifact-Think Aloud  ¥ Providing youth opportunities to talk about their engineering design work in detail (twice during the year)  ¥ Mid-year (December, 2013): 3D Google SketchUp model of design, sketch notebook, and initial prototype  ¥ End of year (May, 2014): Final prototype, sketch up notebook, and movie  Artifact Collection ¥ YouthÕs sketch notebook, 3D Google SketchUp model of design, worksheets, prototypes, movies, etc.    Data analysis was guided by Strauss and CorbinÕs (1990) constant comparative method and my conceptual framework. In the open coding stage, I broke down the youthsÕ design process drawing upon the multiple data sources, and identified focal design decisions in which the youth leveraged and transformed their ideas, practices, and tools to further develop their engineering design. In this process, my conceptual framework, i.e., expansive learning, including hybridity and funds of knowledge, guided the data analysis. Expansive learning theory allowed me to interpret the youthÕs learning in two dimensions (i.e., vertical and horizontal) and to deeply understand the youthÕs actions of bridging between their social worlds and disciplinary worlds. The theory of hybridity offered a lens to look at the processes and outcomes resulting from merging   32 different types of knowledge and resources and its relationship to learning and identity formation. The concept of funds of knowledge provided tools to distinguish the youthÕs cultural knowledge and practices from their STEM knowledge and practices that they leveraged for their engineering design.   Coding schemes were developed and categorized based on youthÕs key design decisions, engagement, and interactions. In the axial and selective coding stage, the connection between initial codes made and categories of codes were created. My themes then emerged by selecting core categories and relating them to other categories.   For trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) of data generation and collection, I brought my drafts of this paper to Quentin and Caitlyn and revised it based on their feedback. I also discussed my data generation strategy and coding process and checked the themes at my regular research group meeting once a week during 2013-2014.    Findings  In this section, I provide a descriptive analysis of how youth engaged in the practices of defining problems and designing solutions when engaged in engineering for sustainable communities. Using the case of the new solar powered cell phone case charger, I describe how Caitlyn and Quentin, over the course of nine months, designed and prototyped a solar-powered cell phone case charger for the iPhone 5. I split the story into three parts: 1) defining the design problems, 2) developing possible solutions, and 3) optimizing designs. In telling this story (cross-cutting each of the 3 parts) I foreground how youth a) recognized and named new layers of complexity in their design process as they arose; b) sought to address design trade-offs in ways that attended to the various   33 intersections of engineering and the public good; and c) attended to pivotal issues regarding the needs of their community which both directed their momentum towards engineering design that benefits the public and positions their hybrid practices as powerful and important.  Defining Design Problems  At the beginning of the school year, BGC youth members were given opportunities to brainstorm about problems that they encountered throughout the year and that they wished to solve by means of engineering. In a regular Green Club session, mentors asked the members to discuss issues that they wanted to resolve for their communities and their residents. As a mentor, I worked closely with Caitlyn and Quentin to facilitate such discussion. The young adults identified the Òshort life of cellphone batteriesÓ as the engineering design problem that they wished to address. When they first began brainstorming about problems their community faced that related to portable energy, they came up with several ideas. However, they decided early in the process to focus on powering their cell phones with solar energy. Initially, their idea was simple: They would use a solar panel to charge cell phones Òon-the-go.Ó It would be Ògood for the earth,Ó eye-catching, and Òvery simpleÓ to make. As they noted in their initial project rationale, they had both technical and social reasons for their idea: Òsolar is most portableÓ and Òpeople can get their energy on-the-goÓ (Figure 3.1).   34  Figure 3.1. Caitlyn and QuentinÕs Initial Idea (Sketch Notebook)  Later, when I asked them about how they identified the design problem, both youth shared how and why it mattered to them: Caitlyn:  When I am out with my friends, and my phone dies, and I need to    get in touch with my mom, then I have no way to charge it. One    time, I  stopped at the little mall thingÑyou know, the mall things    where you can charge  your phone. I charged it there. I was     desperate! [Laughing]  Quentin:  You left it there? While you went around the mall?  Caitlyn:  No, I stayed there! Interviewer:  What did you do when your phone was out of battery?  Caitlyn:  I canÕt do anything. I just used my friendÕs phone.  Interviewer:  Why did your phone die?  Caitlyn:  Because the battery life is short, and youÕre on it all of the time.    35 Quentin: Yes. If you are having a conversation with your friends, itÕs going    to go on and on and on.  Interviewer: How long do you use your phone? Caitlyn:  I use my phone after school. I charge my phone all through the night, and I wake up, and by the time I get out of school, itÕs halfway charged, halfway gone. By the time I get out of here [the Club], itÕs all gone! My friends, they have the same  problems that I do. My parents, my community, my friends. They are always running out of phone battery. We had these experiences in our lives, in our community.  Quentin: ItÕs like phones are the new computers, social networks, GPSÑso    you really need it to stay charged, so you can keep in touch or help    yourself when you need something.  (Artifact Interview, December 18, 2013)  Here, Caitlyn and Quentin exhibited their community-insider expertise. They demonstrated a deep understanding of the variety of roles cell phones play in their everyday lives. Note CaitlynÕs quote: ÒWhen I am out with my friends, and my phone dies, and I need to get in touch with my mom, then I have no way to charge it.Ó Caitlyn notes the importance of keeping in touch with parents for getting rides or finding them when needed. For Caitlyn, as for other students, her cell phone was a key safety tool when she was away from home.    36  Quentin also illustrated another important role of cell phones. Note his last quote: ÒÉ[P]hones are the new computers, social networks, GPS.Ó Like many of his peers who grow up in lower-income households, Quentin has a smartphone and relies on it to stay connected Ð locally with friends and globally with the world. In fact, over half of U.S. teenagers and young adults in lower-income brackets are smartphone owners (Smith, 2015). For these young people, the cell phone is their landline, Internet connection, calculator, translator, camera, encyclopedia, and email all-in-one device. Quentin and his peers use their phones for their schoolwork, social networking, and navigation. Cell phones are central to their lives. QuentinÕs and CaitlynÕs comments articulate the needs their community faces as well as the ethical considerations they are willing to tackle. For youth growing up in lower-income communities, smartphones are key channels for connecting to the broader world. For Caitlyn, Quentin, and their peers, keeping their smartphones working is crucial.   As this interview segment also suggests, these two students understood and identified another specialized need of the youth in their community: keeping cell phone batteries charged. Based on their observations and experiences, Caitlyn and Quentin recognized youthsÕ difficulties in keeping their cell phones charged, especially outside or during the school day when there is limited (or no) access to electrical outlets. As Quentin pointed out, youth keep their cell phones on all the time. Although they try to charge their phones at home overnight, their phones usually die by early afternoon because of the short battery life. In addition, as Caitlyn noted, youth struggle to find places to charge their cell phones, and once they find such places, they have to wait there   37 until the charging is finished. This prevents them from going elsewhere and makes them feel Òdesperate.Ó   Caitlyn and Quentin were aware that their parents, friends, and neighbors had experienced the same problem. As Caitlyn said, ÒMy parents, my community, my friends. They are always running out of phone battery.Ó Indeed, the youth defined their engineering design problem based not solely upon their own interests and needs but also upon the concerns and needs of their community illustrating their willingness to engage in engineering design to solve problems larger than their own.   Developing Possible Solutions  After defining the design problem (Òshort life of cellphone batteriesÓ) Caitlyn and Quentin developed possible solutions with the help of mentors. The first specific idea that Caitlyn suggested was a Òcordless charger powered by solar cells.Ó While learning about different types of renewable energy (e.g., solar, wind, biomass, hydroelectric, and geothermal) and why using renewable energy matters to the environment and the community in Green Club sessions, Caitlyn came to believe that a cordless, portable charger powered by solar cells would extend the life of cell phone batteries, especially when users are outside:   Interviewer:  Why solar cells?  Caitlyn: Oh, because the sun is basically everywhere you go. Even in the     wintertime, there is still going to be sunÉ A solar panel can take     in sun energy.    38 Quentin:  Solar energy does notÉ If it wasnÕt for a solar panel, you would have to plug it up to a wall. And then, you will have to use energy, and the energy is coming from the power plant, and the power plant uses coal, and burning coal creates CO2, and too much CO2 is bad for the earth. But solar panelsÑall it is taking is the sunÕs energy, and it  doesnÕt harm anybody.  Caitlyn: It harms nothing.  Interviewer: Where did you learn this?  Caitlyn and Quentin: [in unison and laughing] Green Club!  (Artifact Interview, December 18, 2013)  Caitlyn and Quentin knew that solar energy is renewable and that solar cells transfer solar energy into electrical energy without emitting carbon dioxide (a cause of greenhouse effects). Caitlyn believed that her idea of a cordless charger powered by solar cells could be an environmentally responsible solution to the design problem. For Caitlyn and Quentin, designing a cordless charger that might help provide young people access to the world was not separate from broader ecological considerations. The community needs they hoped to address were tied up with the needs of their environment (i.e., preventing CO2 emission from burning fossil fuels).   The decision to use solar panels for their charger also reflected the economic needs and concerns of his community. In asking about the benefits of solar panels, Quentin highlighted the possibility of reducing his familyÕs electric bills. Like many of their neighbors, his family had struggled to pay utility bills for years. For Quentin,   39 reducing electric bills was an urgent and critical problem in his family life. Thus, when Caitlyn suggested the idea of a solar-powered cordless charger, he believed that his electric bills would Òhave a differenceÓ if he used the charger at home.   Although the youth immediately liked the idea of a cordless charger powered by solar cells, they were able to appreciate the complexity of design decisions as they began leveraging the knowledge they had acquired from everyday experiences. While discussing possible design solutions, Quentin suddenly raised a question about the cordless charger. As he said, Should I carry the charger? Well, I think it is not convenient, Ôcuz sometimes, I even forget to bring my cell phone to the school or Boys and Girls Club. You think we can carry the charger, as well as your cell phone?Ó (Field note, November 5, 2014)  Quentin pointed out the issue of portability as a potential argument against the usefulness of a solar-powered cordless charger. For Quentin, carrying both a cell phone and a cordless charger is inconvenient because he frequently forgets to bring his cell phone to school or the BGC. He believed that this problem is not exclusive to him. By leveraging his everyday experience, he was able to identify another layer of the design solution. I concurred with QuentinÕs perspectives and shared my wifeÕs experience to support his concerns:   My wife has a similar issue, too. In the morning, she often forgets to carry her cell phone or car key, so she has to come back home. I always remind her to carry her stuff, but that happens again and again.    40 (Field note, November 5, 2014)  Indeed, QuentinÕs question added further texture to the social considerations and made the design challenge more complex.   Caitlyn then suggested another idea, a Òcell phone case with solar cells.Ó Caitlyn asked whether I and Quentin had cell phone cases; both did. Noting that most of her friends, family, and neighbors also had cell phone cases, Caitlyn suggested making a case that was able to charge the cell phone using solar cells. Because a case always stays with its cell phone, people would not need to worry about forgetting to carry it. Quentin and I said that this was a great idea, and the youth decided to develop it further. They settled on their possible solution: Òa solar-powered cell phone case charger.Ó  Caitlyn initially leveraged her knowledge of various forms of renewable energy, honing in on why solar energy might be the most viable approach to their design. However, Quentin and I challenged her initial design ideas by tapping into their funds of knowledge regarding when and how people carry cell phones and chargers. Rather than ignoring their point, Caitlyn drew upon her fund of knowledge to address the issue. Caitlyn knew that many people used phone cases to protect or decorate their phones. By suggesting the idea of adding solar cells to phone cases, Caitlyn was able to partially solve the issue raised by Quentin and me while keeping the social considerations in focus.  Caitlyn and QuentinÕs first iteration of their design project was grounded in a deepening sense of their ethical responsibilities as members of their local community and global stewards of the earth. They were concerned about access and cost, the role of cell   41 phones in their local community, CO2 emissions, and ease of use. This textured view of ethical considerations and how they might design for them grew out of the ways in which Caitlyn and Quentin leveraged their STEM knowledge and their funds of knowledge.  Optimizing Designs  As Caitlyn and Quentin began to prototype their design, they encountered a number of decisions that required them to consider various trade-offs. I discussed the following three optimization decisions: a) focusing on the iPhone 5, b) using a rotatable solar cell system, and c) maximizing power output.   Optimizing designs 1: Focusing on the iPhone 5. Caitlyn and Quentin initially decided to design a cell phone case for their own phones (both had the Samsung Galaxy 4) because the model was easily accessible to them for designing their Google SketchUp 3D model (a graphical prototype). After designing their 3D model based on the size and shape of their phones, the youth shared the model with peers and staff at the Boys and Girls Club to get feedback about their design. They were immediately confronted with an additional problem: not many people in their community had the same phone.   Rather than turning a blind eye to the problem, the youth decided to design a survey with mentors to get more information from their target audience. Using an online-based survey-design program, they designed a 10-question survey focused on the following questions: What phones did people use? How important was it to charge on the go? Did they use a case? How long did their phone battery last? Caitlyn and Quentin conducted the survey in their community and analyzed the results with their mentors at Green Club. They learned that most survey participants had an iPhone 5 (Figure 3.2) and   42 most used their phones more than six hours a day. They also learned that over 90% of respondents valued the idea of Òcharging your phone on-the-go.Ó Based on survey results, Caitlyn and Quentin decided to revise their 3D model for the iPhone 5 to ensure that more people in their community could use their phone case.   This design decision illustrates that Caitlyn and Quentin purposefully optimized their solar-powered phone case design to benefit more people in their community. They could have served their own interests by designing for the Samsung Galaxy 4, but instead they chose to address the needs of the people in their community, based on the results of their survey. They optimized their design to meet the special needs of their community and to further the public good.   Figure 3.2. Survey Results ("What Kind of Phone Do You Have?")   Optimizing designs 2: Rotatable solar cell. Caitlyn and Quentin decided to optimize their design by including a hinged solar panel, allowing it to rotate (hands-free)   43 for optimal exposure to the sun. As part of their research process, Caitlyn and Quentin searched online to determine what other solar cell phone charger products were available. They wanted to be sure that their design was unique and offered more affordances than other products already on the market. Discovering that a few cell phone cases powered by solar cells were already available, they decided to investigate the pros and cons of these cases to figure out how to make their own design better. One of the things they found was that no solar-powered phone cases on the market at that time allowed the user to change the angle of the solar cells. Caitlyn and Quentin discussed why adjusting the angle of the solar cells was important:  Caitlyn: The sunÑitÕs in different spots.  Quentin: Oh yeah, and during the time of dayÉso, it depends. At noon, this     would be good, if we didnÕt move at noon, because at noon, itÕs     right above you. But when itÕs the morning, this plays in this way.     So the angle helps it.  Caitlyn: So, your solar panel stays along with the sun.    (Artifact Interview, May 15, 2014)  The youth understood that solar cells needed to be oriented toward the sun to draw the maximum amount of power and that the sun is Òin different spotsÓ during different times of day. They said that they acquired this knowledge by engaging in a variety of Green Club activities, such as taking fieldtrips to a solar-powered house and a solar panel array and making a solar-powered USB charger. Through these activities, Caitlyn and Quentin had learned that power production depends on the angle of the solar cells. This   44 knowledge led them to decide to make their solar-powered phone case in such a way that the user could adjust the angle of the solar cells. The youth challenged the cell phone case companiesÕ approaches to designing solar-powered phone cases by leveraging the STEM knowledge they acquired through participating in Green Club activities. Rather than unquestioningly following the cell phone case companiesÕ approaches, the youth problematized the companiesÕ solar-powered phone case designs based on what they had learned from Green Club.   Caitlyn and Quentin were not satisfied with merely criticizing the cell phone case companies. By leveraging their funds of knowledge, the students actually came up with possible design solutions. While discussing why adjusting the angle of the solar cells was important, Quentin raised another design issue with Caitlyn: ÒOkay, but if we put something on it, it will be harder to carry around. Maybe it will be hard to put it in my pocket.Ó Quentin suggested simply leaning the phone case on something, like a wall, instead of revising their 3D model to allow for adjustments to the angles of solar cells. Caitlyn agreed that it might be inconvenient to carry the phone case if they put something on it to adjust the angle of the solar cells, but she was not convinced that leaning the phone case on a wall was a good idea. She thought it would be hard to control the angle of the solar cells to draw the maximum amount of power and fully charge the cell phone.  After some discussion, Caitlyn suddenly mentioned the Òdoor hingesÓ she had noticed in her house. She argued that the door hinges played a key role in adjusting the angle of rotation between a door and a wall and suggested adding a ÒhingeÓ piece between the solar cells and the phone case to enable users to control the angle of the solar cells. Caitlyn believed this would allow their phone case to collect enough power to   45 charge an iPhone 5. Users could flip the panels down when they were carrying the phone. Quentin agreed to revise their 3D model, and they drew the hinge piece between the solar cells and the phone case (Figure 3.3).   Figure 3.3. YouthsÕ 3D Model of a Solar-Powered Phone Case   Through this solar cell design process, Caitlyn and Quentin appreciated the complexity involved in making decisions to maximize design trade-offs in ways that attended to their responsibilities to the local and global communities. Caitlyn and Quentin drew upon multiple forms of data, knowledge, and experiences, including an investigation of the pros and cons of solar-powered phone cases, science and engineering knowledge about the angles of solar cells, and their own funds of knowledge about door hinges. They considered multiple criteria and constraints as they optimized their designs. The youth had to find a way to adjust the angle of the solar cells in order to get enough power to charge an iPhone 5. Yet, the issue of power was not the only criterion or constraint that they were considering at that moment. They were also trying to find a better way to meet the other criteria and constraints they had identified (e.g., the design of   46 the phone case should not be bulky, as the case had to fit inside usersÕ pockets or purses, and the solar cells should be angled so that users would not have to hold their phone awkwardly to collect sunlight). The youth felt responsible for finding a way to charge their phone fully on-the-go, in ways that were affordable and not bulky Ð approaches that felt were needed in their community but not addressed by cell phone makers. Their hybrid approach to the design solution Ð incorporating their technical expertise and their funds of knowledge Ð reflects the complexity of the problem space they are working in.  Optimizing Designs 3: Maximizing power output. As Caitlyn and Quentin neared completion of the prototypes, their Green Club mentors invited a group of experts, including scientists, engineers, and inventors, to support the students by providing feedback on their designs and prototypes. When Caitlyn and Quentin were asked about the feedback, they said that the experts encouraged them to Òfigure out how much power a solar panel can produceÓ and to Òfill the whole back of the case with solar panels to fully charge the phone.Ó Until then, neither youth had thought deeply about the size of the solar cells; they were planning to put a ÒminiÓ solar cell on the case to make the case look ÒfancyÓ and ÒportableÓ so it would be attractive to their families, peers, and neighbors.  After the feedback session, however, Caitlyn and Quentin decided to learn how to measure the power of solar cells. Because they wanted to design a phone case that would fully charge an iPhone 5, they set out to learn how to measure the currents and voltages of solar cells using a multi-watt meter (Figure 3.4). They also learned how to calculate power and charging time using relevant math formulas (Figure 3.5). Interestingly, although the experts recommended filling the whole back of the case with solar panels to get more power, the youth did not blindly apply their feedback. Instead, they began to   47 measure the currents and voltages of different types and sizes of solar cells and to calculate each optionÕs power and charging time. Instead of filling the whole back of the phone case with solar cells (i.e., following the feedback of the experts) or using a mini solar cell without enough power to charge an iPhone 5, Caitlyn and Quentin set out to determine the appropriate size and type of solar panel for their phone case. As a result, they were able to optimize their solution, using solar cells that not only produced enough power for an iPhone 5 but also fit into the case (Figure 3.6).   Here, the youth sought to optimize their design solutionÑan appropriate type and size of solar panelÑby drawing upon their STEM knowledge and practices. To make their phone case attractive and accessible to more people in their community, they selectively accepted the expertsÕ advice and authored a new solution to maximize the design trade-offs.   Figure 3.4. Measuring Currents and Voltages of Solar Cells    48  Figure 3.5. Calculating Power and Charging Time  Figure 3.6. Prototype of Solar-Powered Phone Case Charger      49 Discussion The stories of Quentin and Caitlyn highlights two main points: ¥ The youth defined engineering problems and developed solutions that benefit the public by attending to three pivotal issues: (1) the special vulnerabilities of their communities (access and cost), (2) the ethical dimensions of defining a problem and proposing solutions (environmental sustainability), and (3) the importance of taking humanitarian action to potentially transform corporate responsibility in improving climate change practices (new approaches to designing cell phone cases) ¥ The youthsÕ engineering design work lies at the intersection of using engineering to innovate and employing such discipline for the public good. Working for the public good involves the consideration of collectively formed interests at the power-laden boundaries of race, power, oppression, and optimism/danger. On the basis of the findings, I explain each point as follows.   Three Ongoing Pivotal Reflection Points   As previously stated, Caitlyn and Quentin defined engineering problems and developed solutions by attending to (1) the problems to which their communities are susceptible, (2) the ethicality that surrounds problem definition and resolution, and (3) the significance of pursuing humanitarian aims to advance conscientious corporate responsibility in climate change practices. This complex set of ideals served as ongoing pivotal reflections on how the subjects recognized and named new layers of complexity   50 in design decision, addressed design tradeoffs, and sought to integrate their STEM and cultural knowledge/practices into hybrid approaches to solving the problem.   Specifically, Caitlyn and Quentin identified a specialized problem faced by their communitiesÑthe need for a cell phone that can be charged on the fly. As noted earlier, a growing number of low-income community residents rely on cell phones as their primary means of accessing the Internet and accomplishing other daily tasks. A cell phone that stays charged is a tool that can break down the digital divide.   In foregrounding the special vulnerabilities of their localities, Quentin and Caitlyn challenged prototypical practices around who owns a project and whose knowledge counts in design (Hollander & Kahl, 2010). Beyond defining the problem, the youths sought to integrate data generation strategies that incorporate the voices of their communities, from gathering information on types of cell phones used through their interviews and surveys, to ascertaining community membersÕ reactions to the look, feel, and size of the charging case through their efforts to have many different people (peers, college students, parents, BGC staff) test their various prototypes.  However, as the pair endeavored to solve these problems, they created for themselves more complex technological challenges to be addressed. Recall that Quentin and Caitlyn initially sought to optimize their solution by sharing a 3D model of their project with their peers and other adults in the community center. After they shared this design, they realized that many of their peers did not have the same phone as that on which they based their design. They recognized their need to better understand cell phone usage in their communities in more robust ways, and thus engaged in community   51 ethnography to collect information that would reinforce their comprehension of community issues.  Here, and elsewhere in the design process, community-based and participatory forms of research/activity were central to the pairÕs engineering practice as they iteratively moved and repurposed ideas, tools and practices across and within their communities and the Green Club program. Such movement brought along with it a critical orientation toward the complex, dynamic interaction between their technical knowledge/experiences and the cultural knowledge/experiences of their communities. Such orientation allowed for new forms of engineering practice that foreground collective responsibility and the public good.  Furthermore, resisting dominant narratives that have positioned low-income African Americans as without a collective voice in community-based or environmental concerns, Quentin and Caitlyn framed their engineering design as a response to broader concerns on CO2 emissions. Believing that cell phone companies do not care about CO2 emissions, the pair designed their project with the aim of politicizing the need for new technologies that reduced emissions, and placing it in the public sphere as an issue that is worth attention. As an attempt to influence the market, their actions re-fashioned carbon reduction strategies as an individual concern into one that should be pursued by the public realm.  Yet this intersection of ethical considerations and action taking run deeper than just re-positioning the importance of CO2 emissions technologies within the public realm. Such action-taking further positioned the youthÑ youth of color, growing up in an low-income communityÑ as both knowledgeable/capable in STEM and as people who cared   52 about their environment. This sits in contrast to dominant narratives which position both these youth and their communities as outsiders to environmental and STEM discourses. The two youth were critically aware of this intersection of action taking and ethical considerations. Recall that they stated ÒWeÕre innovators!Ó ÒWeÕre engineering experts!Ó ÒWe care about our community . . . and the environment.Ó  Intersection of Engineering as Innovation and Engineering as Instrument for the Public Good   At the heart of the narratives is one youth pairÕs effort to work at the intersection of engineering as an avenue for innovation and engineering as an instrument for the public good. Caitlyn and Quentin designed and created a prototype of the solar-powered cell phone case charger to demonstrate their commitment to the sustainability of their local communities and respond to the global issue of climate change. The goal of Quentin and Caitlyn in implementing their engineering design project was not to earn profits but to acquire credentials that will enable them to satisfy community interests. Their engagement with the cell phone charging problem was not simply motivated by individual interest. Rather, it was partly framed by collectively formed concerns, with consideration for the fact that the boundaries of race, power, oppression, and optimisim/danger are laden with power (Bencze & Carter, 2011).   To illustrate, Caitlyn and Quentin worked on a problem that they defined through interactions with community members and leveraged the experiences and struggles that they identified with in realizing their design. Caitlyn and Quentin developed an on-the-go charger particularly because they deeply understood that cell phones are key safety tools   53 used by their friends, peers, and neighbors. Aware that cell phones also serve as symbolic and pragmatic connections to the broader world among the youth in their locality, the collaborators were firm in their belief that maintaining cell phone functionality was a crucial issue in the design. To address limited access to electrical outlets outside their localities, Caitlyn and Quentin used a solar panel as a power source for the charger. The desire to incorporate green design further expanded how they viewed themselves as part of the global community. Rejecting typical corporate approaches to cell phone cover design, which neglects the contributions of phones to climate change, the subjects sought carbon reduction strategies as measures that extend beyond individual action to the public sphere (Brisman, 2013).  The youthsÕ engineering design work encourages us to unpack and re-theorize commonly believed goals of engineering (or broadly, STEM) education under the influence of neoliberalism. For Caitlyn and Quentin, learning about or implementing engineering is not driven by economic competitiveness, national security, high test scores, or credentials for individual advancement. The narratives of the youth tells us that involvement in engineering translates to commitment to local and global sustainability, adherence to collective social responsibility, and resistance to neoliberal discourse that marginalizes social justice agendas.    It is most important to note that these two youthÕs efforts are consistently laced with optimism Ð that they will make progress toward their goals and that their phone can make a difference. This is not a naŁve optimism. Their design work led them to many frustrations, and they remain aware of the layered dangers they face as youth pushing a way into STEM. As a coda to this story it is important to note that these two continued to   54 work on their design, submitting it to a local entrepreneurial competition the following summer, and then later further revising a business plan and website (http://rc2max.weebly.com) to seek a utility patent for it during the following year.   Conclusion  Neoliberalism has successfully shifted attention away from the public good. In the case of STEM education, attention is increasingly paid to the importance of economic development, national security, and international competitiveness (Tobin, 2011; Carter 2005). Not only does this frame market-driven value and self-interests over democratic citizenship, civic responsibility, and an ethic of care, but it also marginalizes issues of social justice/equity (e.g., oneÕs failure is deemed to be oneÕs own fault) (Lakes & Carter, 2011). The neoliberal agenda suggests that young people growing up in poverty should be interested in engineering only because becoming a professional in engineering will improve oneÕs lot in life, and the workforce may benefit from diverse views.   Yet what we see in the story presented here are two young people who seek to become smarter in engineering in order to make their communities more sustainableÑmore just places to live, learn and play. Their modes for participation in engineering reside not with making the grade or getting the credential (although their participation successfully affords them these outcomes), but rather with collective social responsibility. By attending to community knowledge and concerns alongside their growing technical expertise in energy and engineering, the youth were able to redefine what it means to do engineering.  Indeed, the youth expanded the boundaries of participation in engineering   55 design, reshaping how teaching and learning engineering design might be refigured towards the public good.                                             56 CHAPTER FOUR TOWARD BUILDING MAKERSPACES FOR ALL: YOUTH ENGAGEMENT AND MOBILITIES OF LEARNING IN A COMMUNITY-BASED MAKERSPACE  Introduction This is my phantom jacket and we have a design on it so it wonÕt be plain and it looks like a phantom, like a ghost. And then we have wind turbines on it so it sends, like when we get a powerful wind, it spins and it sends energy to our alarm and it gives the power to the battery so it can workÉYeah, and so people walk and sometimes they say itÕs not safe to walk. So itÕs like 75 percent of people that walk, and they say itÕs not safe to walk, so I just thought IÕd kind of make the jacket for them. And so it will keep them safe so they donÕt get hurt when they walkÉI think it [phantom jacket] says that I care about people and about their safety. I care about the city and keeping it safe Ð By Samuel   Samuel, a 7th grader who regularly attends the makerspace at his local boys and girls club, designed a prototype of the Òphantom jacketÓ over a period of eight months. His phantom jacket has a noisemaker on it so that if someone tries to bully him, he can press the button on the noisemaker to set off an alarm. The jacket uses wind energy from wind turbines on the shoulders to power the noisemaker. The wind turbines send energy to the rechargeable batteries, where it is stored for later use.   The idea for a phantom jacket grew out of his desire to make sure that he and his peers had safe commutes to school and to each otherÕs houses. Samuel surveyed people in his community about safety issues, and discovered that safe transportation was an important issue to over 74% of the respondents. As a responsible member of the   57 community, Samuel wanted to help people by designing the phantom jacket to keep them safe. With the help of mentors in the makerspace, Samuel developed the phantom jacket by engaging in scientific investigations (e.g., he determined the distance from the jacket that the alarm can be heard and the best position for the wind turbines to get the best air flow) and community investigations (e.g., to make the jacket look cool and maximize comfort). He also had opportunities to receive feedback on his jacket from experts (e.g., engineers, scientists, and inventors), community members, and his peer group.   In the process of designing the jacket, Samuel also considered both the environmental and economic concerns of his local and global communities. He decided to power the noisemaker attached to the jacket with wind turbines because he did not want to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which contributes to climate change. Moreover, the rechargeable batteries necessary for the wind turbines would benefit the community economically. He also made the jacket fashionable with an image of a phantom on the front, a hood on the back, and a sleek black color. Over eight months, Samuel iteratively developed, refined, constructed, and tested the design of the phantom jacket in the makerspace. Samuel believed that his working prototype shows that he cares about the safety of the people of his city.    This vignette, and the stories shared later in this chapter, raise important questions about the current maker movement: How and why do youth from non-dominant communities become engaged in the process of creation in makerspaces? What does an inclusive makerspace look like for youth from non-dominant communities?    Aligning with national efforts to increase the numbers of highly educated workers and high-quality businesses in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics   58 (STEM) fields, the maker movement has recently been brought into the spotlight by educators, researchers, and policymakers because of its potential to reshape traditional STEM education in and out of schools. In particular, this movement has been viewed as a promising vehicle for attracting youths from historically marginalized communities to STEM fields.   One of the key efforts to bring the maker movement into STEM education involves providing young people with access to makerspaces. A makerspace, also referred to as a hackerspace or a fab lab, is defined as a physical workspace where individuals create their projects by employing shared physical or digital tools, materials, and resources (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Martinez & Stager, 2013; Peppler & Bender, 2013). In makerspaces, amateurs, especially young people, have access to professional-grade tools and materials that were previously available only to adult experts (e.g., engineers, scientists, and inventors). Makerspaces also offer social venues where makers can meet and collaborate, and serve as on-ramps for people interested in becoming makers in their local community (Dougherty, 2015). The number of makerspaces in informal and formal settings has increased rapidly over the past few years, and more young people can now participate in making or tinkering in makerspaces in public libraries, science centers, and schools throughout their communities (Peppler & Bender, 2013).   Despite the growing number of makerspaces, there is little evidence that makerspaces have been successful in involving a diverse group of young people. Rather, both makerspace participation and culture have been dominated by white, middle-class, males (Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014; Brahms & Crowley, 2014). If all young people are to   59 benefit from this new culture of learning by making, it is vitally important to understand what attracts youths from non-dominant communities to engaging in the process of creation in makerspaces and how to sustain their engagement over time.    In this manuscript, I examine the stories of youth makers who participated in engineering design making projects related to sustainable communities for two years in a community-based makerspace housed at a local afterschool club. In particular, I investigate what practices youths engaged in during their design projects, and how youths engage in such practices in order to provide suggestions for designing more inclusive, equitable makerspaces for youth from non-dominant communities. The guiding research questions were as follows: 1. What practices do the three focal youths engage in during engineering design in community-based makerspaces? 2. How do these youths engage in such practices? 3. What does youth engagement in these practices tells us about the design of inclusive makerspaces for youth from non-dominant communities?    In the next section, I explain my theoretical framework and describe my methods used for this study. After that, I present my findings illustrating the cases of several young people, followed by the discussion and conclusion.        60   Mobilities of Learning  This study is grounded in a mobility of learning framework that is built on a combination of sociocultural perspectives of learning and the theory of expansive learning (Calabrese Barton, Tan, & Greenberg, accepted; Leander, Phillips & Taylor, 2010; Engestrım & Sannino, 2010; Gutierrez, 2012). The mobility of learning framework views learning as both vertical and horizontal movements (Engestrım & Sannino, 2010). In traditional learning theories, learning is considered either the acquisition of knowledge and skills or the process of becoming a legitimate member of a community of practice, thus representing learning primarily as a vertical movement (i.e., from incompetence to competence or from novice to expert) (Engestrım & Sannino, 2010). Existing studies on makerspaces or making/tinkering programs are mainly guided by traditional perspectives of learning such as constructivism (Piaget), constructionism (Papert), or communities of practice (Lave & Wenger). Although such learning theories offer useful theoretical frameworks for understanding the process of youth engagement, learning, and identity formation within makerspaces, they are limited in their ability to capture the complexity of learning since it happens across diverse settings over time.   In makerspaces, individuals likely do not know in advance what they will learn. The participants of makerspaces often learn something that is Ònot yet thereÓ (Engestrım & Sannino, 2010, p. 2). The theory of mobilities of learning allows us to see the horizontal movement of learning developed by navigating or crossing the boundaries of different settings over time (e.g., a makerspace, school, community, afterschool club, house, or the Internet) (Engestrım & Sannino, 2010). This expanded concept of learning encourages us to view individuals as bricoleurs who engage in the ongoing authoring of   61 new selves, knowledge, or objects by means of a diverse range of ideas, practices, or tools. It also enables us to consider a particular physical or virtual space not as an isolated container in which learning happens, but as an open area positioned in a nexus of relations to other places (Leander et al., 2010). Thus, I believe that the mobilities of learning theory provides a useful conceptual tool to capture a more holistic image of the process of youth engagement, learning, and identity formation in makerspaces.   The mobility of learning theory also provides a lens through which to see oneÕs agency in transforming or creating a new culture of space. The horizontal movement of learning often entails hybridizing or transforming ideas, practices, and tools acquired from different places toward the creation of new meanings and identities (Guti”rrez, 2008; Guti”rrez, 2012; Tan & Calabrese Barton, 2012). It also promotes the creation of new modes of engagement in cultural practices that challenge the normative way of participating in practices within certain communities (e.g., makerspaces, science classrooms, or STEM) (Tan & Calabrese Barton, 2012). Such a messy, multi-directional, and non-static movement of learning has often been ignored or even regarded as deficient among proponents of the traditional, vertically focused view of learning; however, advocates of the mobilities of learning perspective view learning as a generative process during which transformation or the creation of a new culture occurs. Thus, it allows us to challenge the normative view of what making/STEM means, and what it means to become maker/STEM experts in makerspaces.   Nonetheless, horizontal movement and hybridization do not happen within or across neutral spaces. That is, oneÕs learning is always situated in local practice in relation to specific histories and contexts (Holland & Lave, 2009; Calabrese Barton et al.,   62 2016). As people move between makerspaces and other spaces (e.g., home, community, and school), their actions are enabled or constrained by either the culture of the place/community (e.g., the actions that are valued, the core members, and the voices that are heard), and/or the broader sociohistorical narratives often associated with stereotypes or limited views of certain groups of people (e.g., who can make/STEM, who is good at making/STEM, and who are the maker/STEM experts). Thus, the leveraging or hybridizing of resources from other settings (or vice versa) may be either welcomed or shunned by others in makerspaces or other places. I believe this is particularly important as I investigate the participation of youth from historically underrepresented groups in makerspaces. Given that the culture of, and participation in, makerspaces have been dominated by a certain group and there are sociohistorical narratives around the competence of a certain group of people in STEM, I cannot easily assume that the access and/or movement of youth to makerspaces are neutral. The grounding of mobilities of learning theory in sociocultural or critical perspectives of learning helps me consider the issues of position, power, and privilege within the context of participation and engagement in makerspaces.   Methods Critical Ethnography  I rely on critical ethnography to frame this study. Critical ethnography is a humanizing methodology for conducting research for participatory critique, transformation, empowerment, and social justice (Trueba, 1999; Anderson, 1989; Paris & Winn, 2013). This methodology is based on the belief that exposing, critiquing, and   63 transforming inequities associated with social structures and labeling devices such as race/ethnicity, gender, and class are consequential and fundamental dimensions of research and analysis (Calabrese Barton, 2001).   Critical ethnography fits well into this study since it enables a researcher (me) and participants (youth from non-dominant communities) to collaboratively uncover and problematize the assumptions of culture or design of makerspaces that may influence youth engagement, learning, and identity formation (e.g., who can do make? Who can be maker? Who is this space for?). By advocating for the voice of youth as well as embracing their histories, cultures, and epistemologies during the research process, this methodology also leads us to conduct research ÒwithÓ participants, rather than ÒonÓ or ÒforÓ them (Calabrese Barton, 2001). That is, the participants are not reduced to objects, but become co-researchers who co-design the process of and co-produce the outcomes of research. For example, I view the outcomes of this research as much broader than this manuscript. I have worked with youth to design research outcomes which matter to them, including weebly pages where they showcase their work, and opportunities to present their work in community settings. Moreover, critical ethnography leads this study toward the goal of transformation (praxis) of social conditions or structures of makerspaces that have systemically marginalized youth from non-dominant communities.   Context  The study setting was Great Lakes City, MI [USA] an urban area hit hard by economic recessions and the subsequent population decline experienced across the state (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). While poverty and loss of industry often frame   64 conversations about Great Lakes City, the youth we work with are quick to point out that Great Lakes City is a Òclose knit communityÓ with Òfun things to do and places to go.Ó One of the central places in the lives of these youth is the Boys and Girls Club [BGC]. The BGC of Great Lakes City opens its doors to over 2,400 youth annually between the ages of 5-17 from low-income backgrounds, the majority of whom have experienced multi-generational poverty given the economic situation of the city.   The study was conducted in a community-based makerspace housed at the Boys and Girls Club [BGC]. The makerspace was established by researchers from a local university and BGC staff in 2013, with the primary goals of supporting youth in developing a productive identity through STEM while also learning about making and engineering design in culturally sustaining ways.   This makerspace runs an educational program known as ÒMaking 4 ChangeÓ (M4C) that supports sustained engagement in making/engineering for sustainable communities. During school years 2013 to 2015, youth who joined M4C visited the makerspace at BGC twice each week (90 Ð 120 minutes per session). M4C adopts a unique approach, engaging youth iteratively and generatively in making activities and in community ethnography as one approach to embedding local knowledge and practice into making or engineering design. Using the cultural tools of ethnography (e.g., collecting multiple perspectives by interviewing community members about safety issues in their community or observing and recording where bullying happens), youth move into community spaces to gain insights into the technological and social aspects of their communityÕs problems. After collecting this data, they analyze and define these problems in their makerspace before developing design solutions, with the support of makerspace   65 mentors that include a professor, doctoral students, and undergraduates with expertise in STEM disciplines and/or education. As the youth iteratively develop, refine, construct, and test their design prototypes, they can access feedback from a range of experts including engineers, scientists, and inventors, as well as community members. Particular solutions are discussed, tested, modified, and communicated, and the participants produce short movies about their prototypes to educate others about the identified problems, why these problems matter to them and to the community, and how their designs can provide solutions. At the end of the school year, parents, peers, school teachers, and neighbors are invited to BGC, where participants present their prototypes and movies.   Participants   The participants in the present study were 3 youths (Samuel, Emily, and Jennifer) taking part in the M4C program between October 2013 and May 2015, primarily from grades 5Ð7 (ages 10Ð13) and from lower-income families. Samuel is an African-American boy, and he was in 6th grade when we first met him in the makerspace. Jennifer and Emily co-designed and co-prototyped their projects as a team for 2 years. Jennifer is an African-American girl and Emily is a white girl. Both were 5th graders when we first met them. All youth makers attended public schools and BGC in Great Lakes City.  They were chosen for this study on the basis of their willingness to share stories about their making/engineering design projects and about their engagement, learning, and identity formation in the makerspace. As mentors, friends, and researchers, we were able to closely observe and interact with the participants while supporting them in the development of their projects throughout the design process.   66 Data Generation   Qualitative data were collected between October 2013 and August 2015, using multiple methods that included participant observations, conversation groups, artifact think-aloud interviews, and reviews of student artifact collections (Table 4.1). A subset of data from a larger research project was used for this study.   Participant observation. Participant observations were mainly conducted in a community-based makerspace, twice weekly from October 2013 to May 2015. The observations included (but were not limited to) 1) when, where, and how participants engaged in making projects; 2) who they interacted with; and 3) what ideas, practices, and tools they leveraged and transformed. Each observation was videotaped, transcribed, and accompanied by field notes.   Conversation groups. Weekly conversation groups were also conducted with a subgroup (two hours/week) as a means of debriefing what was happening at the club and to plan for future activities. In particular, one twelve-week segment focused on how and why participants developed, refined, constructed, and tested their prototypes; what repertoires of knowledge and practices they drew upon or leveraged for their design; and how they positioned themselves in engaging in the design process. Each conversation was videotaped, transcribed, and accompanied by field notes.   Artifact think-aloud interviews. I conducted artifact think-aloud interviews with participants twice during the year to provide them with an opportunity to talk about their design work in more detail. These interviews focused on 1) how they proceeded through the design process; 2) what tools, materials, or resources they used; 3) what their prototypes said about them; and 4) what community and STEM knowledge or practices   67 youth leveraged or transformed for project purposes. Each interview was videotaped, transcribed, and accompanied by field notes.   Youth artifact collection. All youthsÕ artifacts were also collected, including their sketch notebooks, 3D computer models, prototypes, short movies, and worksheets. Each artifact was scanned or saved in electronic format.   Table 4.1. Data Generation Data Form Specific Data Generation Strategy Participant Observation ¥ M4C program: Video recordings of twice-weekly sessions and field notes (96 sessions, 144 hours) ¥ M4C community events (presentations at the BGC or museum): Video recordings of events and field notes (12 hours) Conversation Group ¥ To debrief what was happening at the club and to plan for future activities (24 weeks, 48 hours)  ¥ A 12-week segment of the conversation group focused on how and why participants developed, refined, constructed, and tested their prototypes; what repertoires of knowledge and practices they drew upon or leveraged for their designs; and how they positioned themselves in engaging in the design process Artifact  Think-Aloud Interivew  ¥ Providing opportunities for participants to talk about their design work in more detail (twice during the year)  ¥ Mid-year (December 2013 and December 2014): 3D Google SketchUp design models, sketch notebooks, and initial prototypes  ¥ End of year (May 2014 and May 2015): Final prototypes, sketch notebooks, and movies  Artifact Collection ¥ Sketch notebooks, 3D Google SketchUp design models, worksheets, prototypes, movies, etc.   Data Analysis   Data analysis was guided by my theoretical framework and by Strauss and CorbinÕs (1990) constant comparative method. My theoretical framework, mobilities of learning theory, provided a lens through which to identify and analyze focal events from the data regarding youth engagement in practices in the community-based makerspace,   68 and its link to youth learning, identity and agency. I also used constant comparative analysis to reduce the data into meaningful segments and assign names to these segments (i.e., coding the data), to combine the codes into broader themes, and to make claims based on these themes. I used ATLAS.ti software to organize and code the data. When it comes to specific methods for study, I wrote up event maps illustrating the making or engineering design process of each youth or youth team in chronological order, drawing on multiple data sources. I then identified focal events linking to youth engagement, learning, identity and agency.   In the open coding stage, the analysis of the focal events focused on (but was not be limited to) what activities youth engaged in, who was involved, where/when it happened, and why the youths engaged in such activities. I also looked at whether or not the focal events are related to two dimensions of learning: vertical movement and horizontal movement (Engestrım & Sannino, 2010). Vertical movement refers to learning that happens by developing or building on STEM or community/cultural knowledge and practices during the focal event. Learning that happens in horizontal movement relates to the transfer of knowledge and practices across settings during the focal event. In horizontal movement, participants may leverage and transform their ideas, practices and tools to further their design.   Initial codes were developed and categorized during the open coding process. In the axial and selective coding stage, I connected the initial codes and create categories. Themes then emerged by selecting core categories and relating them to others. Cross-case analysis was also conducted in order to search for themes or patterns that may be shared   69 by different cases. Through reflection on previous research literature and my theoretical framework, I made claims based on my organization of the themes.     Youth Projects  SamuelÕs Projects: Light-up Football & Phantom Jacket. Samuel joined his makerspace club at the start of 6th grade. He wanted to join because he Òkept seeingÓ what other kids were doing, and he wanted an opportunity to do Òsomething like thatÓ as well. Samuel designed a prototype of a Òlight-up footballÓ while working in the makerspace 2Ð3 days a week for five months (Figure 4.1). His football has LED tube lights that wrap around the ball to provide maximum lighting with minimal added weight, friction, and power expenditures. Because the lighting was so efficient, it would also keep its userÕs hands from getting burnt. The lights are powered with batteries that can be recharged at a solar docking station, limiting their environmental impact and saving money. The football itself is constructed from nerf material to further minimize its added weight and to reduce the possibility of injury if one were to be hit in the head. The batteries are stored in a pocket at the center of the ball, accessible by a small door, to keep the ball weighted properly and to minimize the batteriesÕ potential contact with rainwater and sweat.   In 7th grade, Samuel designed the Òphantom jacketÓ to make sure that he and his peers had safe commutes to school and to each otherÕs houses (Figure 4.2). His phantom jacket has a noisemaker on it so that if someone tries to bully him, he can press the button on the noisemaker to set off an alarm. The jacket uses wind energy from wind turbines on the shoulders to power the noisemaker. The wind turbines send energy to rechargeable   70 batteries, where the energy is stored for later use. He also made the jacket fashionable with an image of a phantom on the front, a hood on the back, and a sleek black color.                                      Emily and JenniferÕs Projects: Light-up Scooter & Heated Jacket. Emily and Jennifer joined the makerspace club in the fall of 5th grade, at the same time as Samuel. Jennifer joined because she wanted to use the computers that she knew the makerspace Figure 4.2. Samuel's Phantom Jacket Figure 4.1. Samuel's Light-up Football   71 had. She thought that Òscience is boringÓ and often complained that she was not allowed to Òbuild thingsÓ or Òuse technologyÓ in her science classes at school. However, she felt that she was good at using the computer and the Internet, and the makerspace club would give her a chance to learn new skills. More often than not, outside of school, Jennifer felt that no one recognized her interest or ability with technology. For example, when teachers asked questions about computer skills and the Internet during class, Jennifer was the first one to raise her hand to answer the questions, even though she was rarely called on to help. Her expertise in technology was also not encouraged at home. For example, Jennifer was interested in jailbreaking the iPhone, and she tried to jailbreak her momÕs phone several times:   Jennifer: I am good at jailbreaking stuff. I am actually good at jailbreaking. Like going on an iPad or iPod or whatever, it's like an unlock. You can jailbreak it and get inside of it.  Interviewer: Ah, did you try it?  Jennifer: My mom's iPhone. I read her emails [laugh] (Conversation group interview, March 14, 2014)  Emily, on the other hand, joined the makerspace club because Jennifer joined. The two were best friends and had been from an early age. They both came to the local community club most days after school because both had mothers who worked in the after-school hours, and their schools did not provide after-school programs. Emily felt that the makerspace club gave her something to do with her friend that was interesting.   72  Over the course of 8 months, Emily and Jennifer designed a Òlight-up scooter,Ó which has LED lights (Figure 4.3). The LED lights are powered by a mini solar panel attached to the handle of the scooter. To light up the LED lights in the late afternoon or cloudy days, rechargeable batteries are used to store electric energy. Emily and Jennifer decorated the scooter with duct tape with logos of local universities they like. They made the scooter to help younger kids and their peers play with scooters outdoors in the late afternoon or evening in their community.   The following year, Emily and Jennifer designed a Òheated jacketÓ to provide their peers with Òglamour and fashionÓ and to Òhelp people in their communityÑincluding the homelessÑlive outside in the winter at night and feel safe and warmÓ (Figure 4.4). The jacket has 3 mini heating pads in it that are powered by a flexible solar panel attached to the hoodie part of the jacket. This jacket also had three 9-volt rechargeable batteries that store electric energy to power the heating pads.          Figure 4.3. Emily & Jennifer's Light-up Scooter          73           Findings  I present four overarching key claims regarding the youthsÕ engagement with practices in engineering design in the makerspace to answer the research questions in this section. These claims include:  1. The youthsÕ making practices, which include defining problems and designing solutions, reflect deep and critical knowledge of communitiesÕ needs. 2. The tools of youth ethnography, and the interactions generated by these tools, provided powerful opportunities for youth to a) better leverage their insider knowledge and status as an important part of making, b) use their knowledge of community as launching pads for deeper engagement in STEM/making practices, such as understanding design tasksÕ boundaries, including their criteria and constraints.  Figure 4.4. Emily & Jennifer's Heated Jacket   74 3. In order to be responsive to community needs, the youth found it necessary to account for the complex, multifaceted dimensions of the problems and potential solutions, even when their making work became more difficult as a result.  4. Rooting the making process in community needs and insider knowledge supported the youth in findings ways of humanizing STEM for themselves and others.   I illustrate each key claim, followed by evidence from the youthÕs stories, below.    The youthsÕ making practices, which include defining problems and designing solutions, reflect deep and critical knowledge of communitiesÕ needs  The problems the three youths hoped to solve through engineering design in the makerspace reflected both personal and community concerns or needs that were deeply linked to their communityÕs unique history and context. The problems included Òkeeping my peers and younger children safe when playing football outdoors in our communityÓ and Òhelping kids make friendsÓ (SamuelÕs light-up football), Òhelping people in my community feel safe on the streets at nightÓ or if you Òneed protection from the policeÓ (SamuelÕs phantom jacket), Òhelping kids or our peers play with scooters outdoors in the late afternoon or eveningÓ (Jennifer and EmilyÕs light-up scooter), and providing peers with Òglamour and fashionÓ and Òhelping people in our communityÑincluding the homelessÑlive, work, and play outside in winter at night and feel safe and warmÓ (Jennifer and EmilyÕs heated jacket). The youths purposefully identified problems and concerns linked to broader, sustained problems that their community members (including   75 the youths) had struggled with or negotiated over time. The problems were entangled in systemic oppression experienced by their community, such as decaying infrastructure (e.g., limited street lighting), police brutality (e.g., need for protection) or economic concerns (e.g., the high number of homeless people and poor families), geography (e.g., harsh weather conditions and short days) and youth concerns (e.g., fostering positive peer relationships/friendships, bullying, glamour).   The youths leveraged their community insider knowledge or status to attend to personal as well as broader community issues in their engineering design projects. For example, the idea for a light up football grew out of SamuelÕs desire to make something that would be helpful to people in his community. As he states:  I really care about people. And I could do stuff in the community . . .Some kids don't really play football, don't have no friends and stuff, so I go find people to help out a little bit. (Artifact Interview, May 3, 2014)   SamuelÕs idea of care is nested in his understanding of the needs of the young people in his community. Football is a positive peer activity that can help young people his age make friends. If he could find a way to light the ball, so that he and his friends could play after sundown, then he might help his peers make more friends. He also thought that the Òlight upÓ aspect of his football would entice peers who might not normally be interested in football but find the lights cool.  Later, when Samuel designed his phantom jacket, he hoped it would make Òpeople in his community feel safe on the streets at nights.Ó His concern actually grew   76 out of the community insider knowledge he had acquired over time. When Samuel was asked why he had designed the phantom jacket, he described the issues related to street violence in his community:  Because some people get, like, robbed at night when they walking, some people get beat up, itÕs justÉ ItÕs just that, just trying to look out for people. It began when we were just, John, one of my partners was talking about that somebody had got killed by his neighbor in his neighborhood. Yeah. And he just wanted to, like, make a jacket just in case, like, him or his sisters or somebody else could use that, if they walking, like, so they wouldnÕt get hurt.  (Artifact interview, December 22, 2014)  Samuel had frequently witnessed a number of people, including his peers, being bullied or robbed on the streets in his community as he walked to school or home. He had also experienced being bullied by Òbad guysÓ on the streets. When he heard from his friend that somebody had been killed in his friendÕs neighborhood, Samuel worried about the safety of his family and the people in his community. He and his friend wished they could do something to protect themselves as well as the people in their community. While Samuel worked on his jacket, the #blacklivesmatter movement garnered national attention, and the rationale for the jacket extended to protection from the police, if needed. Samuel was critically aware of the problem of street violence that had been an ongoing issue in his community, and hoped to make his community Òa better place to live.Ó     77  Jennifer & EmilyÕs heated jacket also involves their insiderness across the multiple places of history, geography and culture. They opted to design a heated and lighted hooded sweatshirt. The girls described their project as a sweatshirt that would be Òwarm and bright,Ó and that would also be Òlightweight and beautiful.Ó Emily described the shirt this way,  There are a lot of people who get frostbite in the winter when people are outside. Ours is way cheaper than a regular sweatshirt and way warmer. It will keep you warm and snug. It will have a heater in it and lights for glamour and fashion. (Artifact Interview, December 17, 2014)  In fact, in describing the need for this jacket Jennifer described the time her mom took her on a special trip to ride a horse. She loves horses and had never had the chance to ride one. But, it was a cold day and they had to leave early because she was freezing such that she could not feel her hands and feet. She felt bad that she lost her opportunity to ride a horse.  At the same time the girls want the jacket to be fashionable. However, the aesthetics of the shirt carry deeper meaning than just beauty. Both girls were concerned about inappropriate exposure and also being bullied for appearances. As someone who has been bullied herself for appearance, this was an important concern for Jennifer,  I was like I am going to give you something beautiful but with casual in it so that you don't expose yourself. Like a jacket that goes all of the way down. My idea could help change things. People make fun of you. . . Why are you wearing that? You are ugly. There are stains on your clothes.   78 (Artifact Interview, December 17, 2014)  Thus, the jacket was meant to push back against these negative peer relations in addition to keeping people warm.  Samuel, Jennifer, and Emily identified the authentic local issues in hopes of rectifying the problems that had affected their everyday lives by leveraging their community insider positions. Although the youths were guided by their group mentors in defining the problems for their engineering design projects in the makerspace, their in-depth understanding of their community and their agency in making their community a better place to live enabled them to engage in searching for, identifying, and selecting the particular problems that matter to both the youths and their community.  The tools of youth ethnography, and the interactions generated by these tools, provided powerful opportunities for youth to a) better leverage their insider knowledge and status as an important part of making, b) use their knowledge of community as launching pads for deeper engagement in STEM/making practices, such as understanding design tasksÕ boundaries, including their criteria and constraints  As the youths engaged in identifying the problems, they also utilized the tools of ethnography (e.g., an open- and closed-ended survey, interviews, observation, and data analysis) to further unpack the community membersÕ experiences in relation to the problems (e.g., safety). As community insiders, the youths were easily able to access various groups in their community and to deeply investigate the experiences and multiple   79 perspectives of these people regarding the problems. In doing so, the youths further expanded their community insider knowledge while taking on layers of complexity, which enabled them to finely define and constrain the problem they hoped to solve using engineering.   For example, Samuel designed a survey that included both open- and closed-ended questions with his peers during a Making for Change (M4C) session to investigate the safety concerns that people have in their communities. This survey comprised seven questions including ÒWhat are some of your safety concerns?Ó ÒWhere are the areas that you think safety is most important?Ó and ÒWhat are some ideas that can help you solve those safety concerns?Ó Using an online survey design program (SurveyMonkey) and a tablet computer (iPad), Samuel surveyed 62 people in his community, including peers and staff at BGC, families, teachers, and school friends.    After analyzing the survey data with the help of his mentors in the makerspace, Samuel discovered key safety issues that concerned his community, such as ÒwalkingÓ Òtransportation,Ó Òschool,Ó Òdriving,Ó Òstealing,Ó and ÒfoodÓ (Figure 4.5). He noticed that even though people mentioned walking as a safety issue, it could refer to different things. That is, some people felt that walking in the streets was not safe because of pervasive gang activities. On the other hand, others believed that walking in the streets was dangerous because of the limited streetlights. Samuel also found that his peers and younger children were more concerned about walking in the streets due to gang activities and the limited streetlights, while adults were more worried about driving on the roads.     80   As Samuel further analyzed the survey data, he was able to narrow down the problems he hoped to solve using engineering. When analyzing the answers to the question of the survey, he noticed that approximately 75 percent of the participants Òfelt unsafe on the streetsÓ as they commuted to school, home, and other places. When Samuel was asked what he had learned from his analysis of the survey data, he said,  Yeah, people walk and sometimes they say itÕs not safe to walk, so itÕs, like, 75% of people that walks and they say itÕs not safe to walk. So I just thought IÕd make the jacket for them. And so it will keep them safe so they donÕt get hurt when they walk. (Artifact interview, May 13, 2015)   As we can see here, Samuel recognized that a large percentage of people in his community had the same concerns about feeling unsafe on the streets as he did. Samuel decided to design his making project (Òphantom jacketÓ) to keep more community people safe on the streets.  Figure 4.5. The Problems in Relation to Safety in SamuelÕs Community    81  Using the tools of ethnography also supported the youths in understanding their initial design tasksÕ boundaries, including their criteria and constraints. As we see in the aforementioned example of SamuelÕs phantom jacket, the analysis of the survey data supported Samuel in understanding the design taskÕs boundaries, including its constraints and criteria. Samuel came to realize that his making project needed to have key functions to protect people from gangs. Thus, his initial jacket design (Figure 4.6) had Òa hoodie to hide your face,Ó so that the gang members could not recognize the person wearing the jacket, and Òa voice-activated buttonÓ to call to nearby police officers. The jacket also had another button that lit up LED lights attached to the jacket so that people could see the wearer if he or she was in trouble under the limited streetlights at night in his city.    Figure 4.6. Initial Sketch of Samuel's Phantom Jacket   In the case of the light-up scooter, Emily and Jennifer had opportunities to interview their friends at the BGC about their initial idea for the scooter. From the interviews, the youth discovered that their friends wanted a place on their scooters to hold their portable electric devices such as their cell phones or mp3 players. Many of their   82 friends hoped to listen to music on their portable electric devices and to keep their devices charged while using their scooters. This feedback led Emily and Jennifer to add the holder in their initial sketch of a light-up scooter (Figure 4.7) and pushed them to investigate how to charge their cell phones or mp3 players on the go, such as testing how a solar panel works and how it charges the portable electric devices (Figure 4.8).                    Figure 4.7. Initial Sketch of Light Up Scooter Figure 4.8. Jennifer Tests How a Solar panel Works   83  In the case of SamuelÕs light-up football, the tools of youth ethnography also provided launching pads for deeper engagement in STEM/making practices. For example, one day Samuel interviewed younger children at the BGC for feedback on his prototype of the light-up football. During the interview, one of interviewees suddenly asked Samuel about whether the light-up football was waterproof or not. Since the younger children hoped to play football even on rainy days, waterproofness of the football was one important design criteria. Right after the interview, Samuel actually tested whether his light-up football was waterproof (Figure 4.9). He went to the kitchen at the BGC and turned on the faucet. When water came out, Samuel placed his football under the water and observed what happened. Finally, he found that his light-up football was waterproof, so he could still turn on the LED lights.            Figure 4.9. Samuel Tests Whether His Light-up Football Is Waterproof   84 In order to be responsive to community needs, the youth found it necessary to account for the complex, multifaceted dimensions of the problems and potential solutions, even when their making work became more difficult as a result  When developing possible solutions to solve the defined problems, the youths often refused to simply take one criterion or constraint into account in making design decisions. Rather, they sought to see the complex, multifaceted dimensions of potential solutions, which included social, economic, environmental, and technical factors.   For example, when Emily and Jennifer collected information about materials for their initial idea for a Òheated, light-up sweatshirtÓ via web searches, they spent quite a lot of time trying to find a Òbeautiful but casualÓ shirt. When Jennifer was asked about that search, she said:  Because, well, this kind of generation itÕsÉ mostly about beauty, pop-like popularity, stuff like that. ItÕs not really about being smart anymore; itÕs more about being beautiful or having cool stuff or cool items. Boys, like, they wear hats and they sag; girls wear short shorts and little belly shirts. But no one these days just wears regular stuff like jeans and a t-shirt, like, how IÕm wearing or something like that. People, like, wear the belly shirts, they wear short shorts, they wear stuff like that, so I was, like, IÕm going to give you something beautiful but with casual in it so youÕre not exposing yourself, like a jacket, like a little jacket that goes all the way down, and it has little beautiful light-up things and stuff like that so, cause these days you, like, you mostly want to expose stuff to get boys to like you or to get girls to like you, itÕs not even really coolÉ (Artifact Interview, December 17, 2014)   85  As noted, Jennifer considered the aesthetics of the shirt as a key criterion for her project. Based on her knowledge acquired from peer groups and school, she knew that her peers highly valued ÒbeautyÓ and having ÒcoolÓ items. However, the aesthetics of the shirt carried deeper meaning than just beauty. Jennifer was concerned about the peer culture promoting inappropriate exposure of the body and wanted to challenge the culture by designing Òsomething beautiful but with casual in it.Ó Furthermore, the design of the shirt also came from her concern about the risk of being bullied due to oneÕs appearance:  I know a kid [points in direction of school] who goes to my school who gets bullied half time for his, well, clothing style, like, he comes and he wears jackets almost every day. He comes in and wears jackets, regular jeans, or he wears, like, sandals,Épeople [in my school] are like, [in a mocking tone] ÒWhy are you wearing that?Ó ÒYouÕre ugly.Ó ÒThereÕs stains on your clothes.Ó (Artifact Interview, December 17, 2014)  Based on her observations over time at her school, Jennifer noticed that oneÕs regular Òclothing styleÓ and Òstains on oneÕs clothesÓ could provide a reason for being bullied. Thus, making her jacket ÒbeautifulÓ also represents her strong desire to prevent bullying in her school.   Additionally, when designing a light-up football, Samuel had to find a way to power the LED lights on the football. At first, he tried to use regular batteries as power sources, but he later decided to use rechargeable batteries for the LED lights and charge   86 the batteries with a mini solar panel. When asked why he had selected the rechargeable batteries, he spoke of the multifaceted aspects of the solution:   Interviewer:  So, uh, let me put it this way. Like. Instead of using some, just,    batteries, you used rechargeable batteries, right? Samuel:  Yeah. Interviewer:  So that you can charge again, right? Samuel:  Yeah. Interviewer:  Why did you... Why did you decide that? Samuel:  So, you could save, likeÉ Interviewer:  What made you decide that? Samuel:  É save energy and money so you wonÕt have to, like, keep buying    and buying batteries. So make the world greener, so, like, when    you throw, throw batteries away you can, like, and those can get    inside your trash, like the raccoons can, like, take your batteries,    take your trash and batteries out. So to, like, leave it, like the    batteries everywhere, so they can eat it and stuff. So I didn't want    that to happen, so I made it so it could be rechargeable batteries so    it could, the batteries can just be used on and on again.     (Artifact interview, May 30, 2014)  As explained above, Samuel did not simply select the rechargeable batteries because his mentors asked him to do so, nor did he use them randomly. He also did not use the rechargeable batteries to address only one aspect of the design solution. Rather, he   87 considered a few key aspects when making the decision. First, he deliberately selected a more environmentally friendly approach to solve the design problem. Samuel was aware that the use of the rechargeable batteries could Òmake the world greener,Ó and reduce the amount of harmful metals such as mercury, lead, and cadmium released into the environment. Samuel also considered the economic aspect of the problem. He believed that the use of rechargeable batteries could reduce the cost of operating the lights on the football, which could lighten the financial burden of the youths from low-income families in his community. Samuel even wanted to protect raccoons from possible danger brought about by trying to eat batteries in trashcans. In short, SamuelÕs decision regarding the power source seemed simple at first glance, but it came about as a result of his consideration of the multifaceted dimensions of the solution, which, in turn, resulted from his desire to make a humanizing and environment-friendly project.   In working toward solutions, the youths sometimes encountered design problems or setbacks. Rather than giving up their design tasks or simply asking for help from their mentors, they innovated new ways of solving the design problems or overcoming setbacks by appropriating and repurposing the practices, relationships, and tools derived from navigating their community over time.   For example, the girls were fixated on ensuring that the jacket was fashionable and affordable, but their ideas about what this meant from a technical standpoint were vague. Their initial design sketches included fashion ideas, but lacked in-depth clarity on the technical aspects of the design. When the girls outlined next steps, the steps focused on the fashion components and their peersÕ desires. The girls drew upon in-depth Pinterest explorations looking at jacket designs, lettering and flower decorations (Figure   88 4.10). The technical challenge of heating the jacket in a non-bulky way became a major frustration, and Pinterest provided a zone of comfort for them to hang out in until they had some technical ideas to follow up on. When they ultimately did test different heating pads, they all seemed too big and fluffy. This led to more on-line exploration, and a sense that they had something very new to offer (ÒAll of the heated jackets are for hunting and construction, not for casualÉLook, they all have those big heating parts, and that would be heavy!Ó)            When Samuel printed out ÒprotectorsÓ for wind turbines with a 3D printer, he encountered a challenge. His 3D model of the protectors had a ÒholderÓ part by which the protectors could be connected to the jacket (Figure 4.11). Yet, as he was trying to glue the holder to the jacket, he found that the protectors were not sturdy enough. They were too thin, and were not able to support the other required parts. After discovering the issue, one of the mentors recommended that he should modify the design of the 3D model and print it out again. However, Samuel was concerned that it would take too much time to do Figure 4.10. Emily and Jennifer's Pinterest Page   89 so. The final event, in which all youths would present their prototypes to the community, was coming soon, and Samuel wanted to set aside time to develop other parts of his prototype. Interestingly, he suddenly grabbed a hammer and a screwdriver on the table and began to separate the holder part from the protector (Figure 4.12). The mentor was surprised and urged him to stop. However, Samuel said, ÒI am good at taking things apart. Let me get this done!Ó and got permission from the mentor to separate the holder part with the tools. He removed the holder part from the main part of the protector in a few minutes. As a result, Samuel was able to successfully attach the protectors to the shoulder of the phantom jacket, allowing him much more time to continue working on other parts of his prototype (Figure 4.13).            Figure 4.11. Google Sketchup Model of Protector        90                  Interestingly, as I interviewed Samuel, I learned that his improvisational skills originated from knowledge or practice acquired at his home over time:   Interviewer:  Oh! I remember the moment that you are modifying, revising the protector parts, so as far as I remember, you said you were good at revising those thingsÉ Samuel:  I like to take things apart.  Figure 4.12. Separating the Holder Part from the Protector Figure 4.13. Attaching the Protector to the Jacket   91 Interviewer:  So where did you get that like, Samuel:  At home, cause I just be sitting at home and I just find something,    take it apart and put it back together.  Interviewer:  What did you take apart? Samuel:  My grandmother had like a little light up butterfly thing and it stopped working and I was just getting bored so I took it apart and I seen what the problem was. It was like wires were disconnected and so I had started messing with the wires, I wasnÕt in M4C at this time either. I was just messing with the wires cause it was broke so I was just messing with the wires and I had took like all the wires that connected to one piece and it wouldnÕt work, so I took it apart and connected it to the other one, it didnÕt work. I just connected to a different color one and it stated working.  (Artifact interview, May 15, 2015)  Interviewer:  So do you do inventions at home?  Do you do that?  Do youÉ Stephen:   I donÕt really do inventions at home, I just like take things apart and put them back together and I like to see how the people make the things.  Cause last night I had took my remote, my play station 3 remote apart and see how they like put the analog sticks and wires in together and I think that was really cool because how they had everything in there and it wasnÕt like squished or nothing.  (Artifact Interview, December 14, 2015)   92  As shown above, Samuel had developed skills by taking his grandmotherÕs butterfly-shaped lamp and his game-remote controller apart and putting them back together at his house. Even before joining the M4C program, Samuel had already acquired skills using the resources available in his everyday life. Here, someone might see that SamuelÕs improvisational tinkering is not that different from the traditional way of solving problems through engineering or making in makerspaces. However, I would argue that his practice pushed back against the normative way of carrying out engineering or making projects. He actually refused to modify the 3D model and reprint it with the 3D printer, as the mentor suggested, which could be viewed as the normative way of executing engineering or making projects (Òdeveloping a sketch or physical modelsÓ). Instead, he leveraged the practice developed at his home and repurposed the practice in the makerspace to create a new solution. This occurred because Samuel was considering another design constraint (the limited amount of time) as well. To solve the design challenges (Òthe protectors were not sturdy enough to stand on the shoulder of the jacketÓ) and to meet the design criteria (ÒtimeÓ), Samuel crafted a new way of solving the problem.    Furthermore, the youths actively leveraged their network of community experts to solve the design setbacks while developing solutions. For example, when Jennifer & Emily ran into problems trying to heat their jacket with smaller 5v heaters, one of the mentors reminded the girls of a video blog they made earlier in the year, where Jennifer told a story of how her dad insulated their fireplace at home:    93 The silver lining, as a kid I seen a lot of it because we had to put it, we had something in our fire place. We had to put silver lining around it so the heat would stay in it, but it wouldn't burn anything outside of it (Artifact interview, December 17, 2014)  This insight on insulation that Jennifer gleaned from home led the girls to investigate how insulation might allow them to use smaller heating elements - with lower power demands - to work more efficiently in their design.   Later, while Jennifer was making her heated jacket, she accidentally cut parts of the jacket. Since Jennifer did not have another jacket at that point, she felt frustrated. One mentor suggested that she could use the sewing machine in the makerspace to repair her jacket. Unfortunately, no one in the group knew how to use the machine. At that point, Jennifer said to her mentor that she knew of a BGC staff member who knew how to use the sewing machine:  I know Gemma [a staff of BGC] can use the sewing machine. She told me before.  I remember it!  (Field note, February 26, 2015)   She later contacted the staff member, who helped her learn how to use the sewing machine (Figure 4.14). After about an hour of training, Jennifer successfully fixed her jacket with the sewing machine. Furthermore, she became the sewing machine expert and taught other youths how to use it. When she was asked how she felt about this process, she said,    94 This is me making horrible mistakes by cutting by cutting it, and I had to sew it back together again. But this was actually really fun processÉSo next time something breaks we can sew it together.   (Movie Transcript, May 7, 2015)  Importantly, learning to use the new tool with the help of the community expert helped her to understand the importance of learning from failure and the process of iterative design.    Figure 4.14. Jennifer Learns How to Use the Sewing Machine with the Help of a BGC Staff  As we can see from the stories, the youthsÕ making practices rooted in their communities allowed them to attend to the multifaceted dimensions of the problems and solutions. Perhaps more importantly, this rootedness promoted the youthsÕ engagement in humanizing the act of making. That is, the youth engaged in making for public good and to resist systemic oppression that had marginalized people in their communities.    95 Rooting the making process in community needs and insider knowledge supported the youth in findings ways of humanizing STEM for themselves and others  As the youths engaged in their making practices by iteratively moving between their makerspace and the community, through engaging in ethnography, they began to develop new understanding of what it means to carry out engineering design (or STEM) or to become engineering experts (or STEM experts) within the world they inhabit, refiguring participation in these worlds and the possibilities for becoming within them. For example, when Samuel was asked what his dream was and what the phantom jacket said about him, he said:  I wanna be a scientist or engineer. M4C influenced my dream. When I came to M4C, I was thinking about taking it to the next level and becoming a full time engineer...I think it [my engineering design] says that I am a good person. And I think it says that I care about a lot of people and their safety. I care about the city and keeping it safe. (Artifact interview, May 13, 2015)  As noted here, Samuel began to envision his future in a STEM field (Òa scientist or engineerÓ) while participating in engineering design in the makerspace. Given that he never imagined a future career in STEM before he joined the M4C program, this was a significant change. Perhaps more importantly, he refigured participation in STEM by engaging in engineering design in humanizing ways to respond to broader community issues and for people in his community. In other words, Samuel came to view   96 engineering (or becoming an engineer) as making a difference, transforming his community into a better place to live.    Moreover, through engaging in engineering design, the youths created new opportunities in which they challenged stereotypes, discrimination, and oppression associated with their race/ethnicity, gender, class, and age that had historically marginalized their participation in engineering (or STEM). For example, when Jennifer was asked what her prototype of the light-up scooter said about her, she said,   I feel like it will be super cool. People will love it. They'll say, "Who made this?" It was me. Then they'll ask me like, "The tiny person always in the background did this? I'll say, "Yeah, I did that." They're like, "Oh, my gosh. Look, everybody. This girl did this giant scooter. We all love it. It's awesome and cool." Little kids can do ginormous work!...It would probably say this girl knows how to have fun, how to get down and smart when she really needs to. It will probably say about me she knows how to have fun. She can get down and smart when she really needs to. This girl can be fun. She could build things. She could make the world a different place and help everybody else learn how to have the type of fun she has and stuff. (Artifact Interview, December 18, 2013)  Jennifer had been recognized as a little girl who was Òalways in the backgroundÓ in her school. That is, she was not an active participant in classes and was not often viewed as capable or smart in science. Jennifer actually believed that teachers and classmates had   97 unfairly underestimated her competence or potential in science due to her skin color, gender, and age. Unfortunately, Jennifer had a limited support network to help her form a strong identity and challenge such marginalization.   However, Jennifer created new opportunities in which she could author new selves through STEM by making the light-up scooter in the makerspace. By making the light-up scooter, Jennifer was able to assert herself as someone who could do Òginormous workÓ through STEM, who showed that girls could be good at Òbuilding things,Ó and that they could Òmake the world a different place.Ó   Furthermore, I would argue that the youths not only authored new identities through STEM by engaging in making, but also attempted to transform a space in which they had historically been marginalized. During the design process, the youths often brought their design ideas, prototypes, or movies into their schools, homes, and BGC (outside of the makerspace). They shared their ideas with teachers, friends, families, and BGC staff, and showed their artifacts to them. This often led to community members expressing surprise, offering compliments, and providing encouragement. For example, when Samuel brought the phantom jacket to his school (Figure 4.15), he changed how he was viewed by his teachers and classmates. As Samuel said,  My school teachers, they was going on and on about how they liked my project. They was like, you did a very good job and when we all walked out the door, they took us outside cause I did a good job.  So they gave like the whole class a reward for me doing a good job. I felt great. I felt like people would really need my invention. So I really felt great for myself.   (Artifact Interview, May 13, 2015)   98  Samuel was not viewed as Òa science personÓ or Òa smart studentÓ in his school at that point. He did not yet have sufficient resources that he could leverage to show his potential and competence in science. However, after building his prototype, Samuel saw the possibility that his phantom jacket could help him begin to create a new image for himself in his school. He was able to show how innovative he was and how he cared about his community with his phantom jacket, reshaping how he was recognized by teachers and classmates. That is, Samuel intended to transform his school or classroom into a space full of new possibilities through STEM.   Figure 4.15. Samuel Presents His Phantom Jacket to His Classroom  Discussion  The findings of this study highlight that the youth in this study engaged in making practices by iteratively and generatively moving their ideas, practices, and tools between their makerspace and community, creating innovative making projects, and crafting new identities in STEM. The boundary between the makerspace and the community was   99 blurred, and this blurring of the lines allowed the youth to create new modes of participation in engineering design/making. Previous studies primarily viewed makerspaces as closed learning environments or bounded communities of practice in which individuals participate in core making practices and become legitimate members of communities (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Brahms, 2014; Sheridan et al., 2014). However, the youth in this study showed us that their makerspace work is much more flexible, and that it is positioned Òin a nexus of relationsÓ to various physical and virtual locales, such as home, school, Pinterest, playgrounds, and transportation routes. The juxtaposition of these locales, and Òthe contact zones between them, become an expanded terrain of examination and evidenceÓ (Leander, Phillips, & Taylor, 2010, p. 336) concerning both making and place.   The findings show that the youth fostered the creation of contact zones between places by their community insider knowledge they leveraged towards technical design starting points. For example, SamuelÕs in-depth knowledge about the needs of his peers in the community (ÒSome kids donÕt really play football; they don't have friends.Ó) led him to design a football with lights so that children in the community could play football after sundown and, moreover, the Òlight upÓ aspect of the football would entice his peers who might not normally be interested in football but who find the lights cool. Jennifer used her knowledge of how her father insulated a fireplace as a starting point to design a lightweight heated jacket.   The youth also created contact zones using tools that they appropriated for new purposes. For instance, Pinterest served both as a tool for Jennifer to position herself with authority, given her expertise in computers, and gave her time to think through the   100 fashion aspect of her design while she sought safe inroads for the technical aspects of the task. Emily, then, developed new tests (such as the skin test and the timed test) for assessing the quality of the heating system in the jacket when the standard quantitative thermometer test proved too limiting.   Furthermore, the youth leveraged their social networks to create contact zones; they strategically brought new and diverse people into the design conversation, such as their friends, parents/grandparents, teachers, engineers, and also little kids, incorporating the technical and social concerns discussed into their designs. This allowed the youth to advance the technical quality of their innovations while deeply ensconcing themselves as an integral part of their design.  I argue that this blurring of spaces or contact zones helped the youth to ÒdeterritorializeÓ (Fendler, 2013, p. 789) the makerspace. In other words, as the histories and geographies of the youth shaped the ways in which they bound the problems they sought and the solutions they developed, the youth de-settled the historically established notion of what counts as making and whose knowledge or practices matter in making. In the contact zones, the youthÕs ideas, practices, tools, and relationships, which were built by navigating other locales, were highly valued as critical resources for developing innovative and personally meaningful making projects. As a result, the youth gained the status of experts, and they were empowered by sharing epistemic authority or power with adult mentors in the makerspace. Their unsanctioned practices became sanctioned practices, expanding the notion of making. Moreover, the deterritorialization of the makerspace paved the way to the deterritorialization of other spaces in which youth from non-dominant communities had been historically marginalized from participating in   101 engineering/making (or STEM). For example, when Samuel brought his phantom jacket to his school, he had an opportunity for challenging how he was recognized by schoolteachers or classmates, resisting the traditional notion of who can do engineering/making. When Jennifer introduced her light-up scooter to her peers in school, she could position herself not as a tiny person who is Òalways in the background,Ó but as someone who could do Òginormous workÓ to Òmake the world a different place.Ó  The contact zones also allowed the youth to humanize the act of making. It provided a space in which the youth brought who they were and what they cared about as responsible community members into the making process. All the youth who participated in this study loved their community, cared about its people, and hoped to make their community a better place to live. This led them to purposefully select problems that were linked to the systemic oppression experienced by their community. I also believe that it allowed the youth to consider complex, multifaceted dimensions of potential solutions, such as social, economic, environmental, and technical factors, when developing their solutions.    Conclusion  This study examined youthsÕ engagement with practices in a community-based makerspace in order to suggest implications for designing inclusive makerspaces for youth from non-dominant communities. I offer suggestions for designing equitable, inclusive makerspaces based on the findings of this study.   First, inclusive makerspaces allow youth to leverage their ideas, practices, tools, or relationships acquired from navigating their communities over time as legitimate   102 resource that can enrich making/STEM learning. As described in the findings, the youthsÕ community insider knowledge/status, social networks, and tools of youth ethnography played critical roles in defining problems and designing solutions in both personally and disciplinarily meaningful ways. Moreover, the youth were empowered by positioning themselves (and being recognized by others) as experts whose knowledge, practices, or tools count as valuable resources in the makerspace.   Second, inclusive makerspaces encourage youth to engage in more intellectually rich tasks with sufficient support, challenging the deficit perspective on youth from non-dominant communities. The youth in our study did not hesitate to respond to complex, multifaceted dimensions of the problems and solutions when engaging in making practices. The youth engaged deeply in learning STEM knowledge and practices and creatively merged both community and STEM ideas, tools, and practices into innovative making projects with the support from mentors, STEM experts, and community experts. The youthsÕ stories challenge the deficit perspective in which youth from non-dominant communities who are often unfairly framed as Òat-riskÓ or ÒunderachievingÓ students should be given basic sets of tasks in makerspaces.   Third, inclusive makerspaces support youth in expanding the meaning and purpose of making/STEM. For the youths in our study, making was more than having fun or learning STEM. For them, making was a set of collective efforts to improve their community by fighting against systemic oppression, such as decaying infrastructures or economic concerns. The youth also had opportunities to refigure what counted as making, whose knowledge matters in makerspaces, and who benefits from making. This experience led them to question, challenge, and reconstruct the meaning or purpose of   103 making, moving beyond access to mainstream knowledge and practices regarding making or makerspaces.                        104 CHAPTER FIVE ÒWE WANT A MAKERSPACE!Ó: YOUTH PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH FOR DESIGNING A YOUTH-CENTERED MAKERSPACE  Introduction When we make stuff, we feel awesome because it makes you feel like you can do stuff and you have the power. Everybody needs to feel that feeling. Everybody needs to know how that feels. If you start young, youÕll get better while youÕre in school and youÕll learn faster and get your degree and get into a better school that teaches you better engineering information. And you need to follow your dreams. If you want to be in engineering, follow your dreams. If you want to be the president, follow your dreams. Anything you want to be, you can beÉIf people donÕt have the material to make stuff, they can have an M4C, and it can be a community. A lot of people want to build stuff but donÕt have stuff to build it with. A community makerspace offers stuff to people who need stuff to build with. They can build anything. In a community, you feel welcome. If you donÕt feel welcome, then you wonÕt want to go help people build stuff. Ð Ashlee and Patricia     On August 25, 2015, 16 youth who joined the Making for Change (M4C) summer program presented their research findings from their youth participatory action research (YPAR) on makerspaces to the executive board of directors of their afterschool club. During the presentation, Ashlee and Patricia, two of the youth members of the program, introduced why they needed a new makerspace in the afterschool club, and they appealed for support from the board members. They underlined the importance of the early making   105 experiences that empowered them to craft their future in engineering. They also highlighted the key role of the makerspace in providing people in their community with access to the tools or materials necessary to build something they wanted or needed. Ashlee and Patricia emphasized the inclusive culture of makerspace by stating that all community members and not just makers could engage in the space.   Demonstrating their movies, PowerPoint slides, and their new designs for makerspaces that were created with a 3D design software program and demonstrated with Play-Doh, the youth reported what they investigated about local makerspaces, how they conducted the investigations, and what they discovered during the process. In addition, they conducted an interactive activity in which the board members could experience a simple making process, such as building electric circuits to operate a motor or to turn on buzzers. Although the youth had only half an hour to present their works to the executive board members, they created a space where their voices and experiences on makerspaces were heard and shared. Drawing upon their research, the youth challenged the traditional notion of makerspaces for adult hobbyists or engineering college students, and they sought to build a new youth-centered and community-based makerspace in their afterschool club. Surprisingly, a few weeks later, the youth heard that the board members decided to expand the afterschool clubÕs building area for a new makerspace, and the board members planned to allocate the necessary budget for buying the machines, tools, and materials needed for the space.    This story provides us with an opportunity for rethinking the current discourse of the makerspace movement. Due to its potential to offer integrated STEM learning environmentsÑin which learner-centered, interest-driven, and interdisciplinary learning   106 may transform traditional STEM educationÑthe makerspace movement has recently drawn attention from policy makers, researchers, and educators (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). In particular, makerspaces have been viewed as a new way to support youth from historically marginalized groups in engaging in STEM. Accordingly, the number of makerspaces has rapidly increased in public libraries, science museums, and afterschool clubs for the past few years, and studies on makerspaces and relevant makerspace education programs have begun to emerge in education literature (Peppler & Bender, 2013; Vossoughi & Bevin, 2014). However, contrary to the hopes of its advocates, makerspace participation and culture have been overwhelmingly dominated by white, middle-class, male adults (Vossoughi & Bevin, 2014; Brahms & Crowley, 2014). Despite the increased number of makerspaces in the U.S., this trend has not significantly changed until now. A few studies have begun to examine the diversity or equity issues regarding makerspaces and to discuss how to broaden participation among youths from diverse backgrounds (see Calabrese Barton, Tan, & Greenberg, accepted; Vossoughi, Escude, Kong, & Hooper, 2013).   However, the story illustrated at the beginning of this paper pushes us to involve youth as key stakeholders in discussing the equity issues of makerspaces. Previous literature often ignored the youth when diagnosing problems with makerspace culture and participation, as well as when designing makerspaces for youth. Little research has been done to consider the youthsÕ voices, perspectives, or experiences as critical resources in designing inclusive makerspaces for youth from diverse backgrounds. If our focus is to design inclusive makerspaces for all youth, why not listen to the youth? Why not give them the power to design and to develop their own makerspaces?    107  This study is a response to the literature gap. The purpose of this study is to examine the process and the results of the YPAR project, in which 16 youths joined the Making for Change (M4C) summer program, researched the design features of local makerspaces, and designed a new youth-centered and community-based makerspace in a local afterschool club. Guided by the YPAR framework, this study seeks to foreground the voices of those youths who have been silenced in the previous literature, suggesting how to create inclusive and welcoming makerspaces for youth from non-dominant communities. The questions guiding this inquiry are as follows:  1. How do youth frame the importance of a youth-centered and community-based makerspace through engaging in YPAR? 2. What does engaging in YPAR tell us about youthsÕ desired identities and practices in making/engineering?  Youth Participatory Action Research  This study is grounded on Youth Participatory Action Research [YPAR], which is both an epistemology as well as a methodology. In terms of an epistemology, YPAR is important because it challenges traditional ideas of who has the authority to produce knowledge and whose knowledge is deemed valuable in social science (Cammarota & Fine, 2008; Fine, 2008; Bautista et al., 2013). By deliberately inverting who frames the problem, who constructs research designs, and who interprets the findings, YPAR empowers youth who have been historically excluded or oppressed to deconstruct the deficient views, oppressive systems, and subjugating discourses affecting their daily lives (Fine, 2008; Bautista et al., 2013). Knowledge generated from YPAR is always co-  108 constructed towards activist ends. In other words, findings from YPAR are often launching pads for actions to initiate social change rather than mere facts stored in academic literature (Morrell, 2006; Cammarota & Fine, 2008). Thus, YPAR is called Òa critical epistemology that redefines knowledge as actions in pursuit of social justiceÓ (Cammarota & Fine, 2008, p. 6). Accordingly, the youth in YPAR projects are regarded as agents of change who transform themselves and the worlds they inhabit (Bautista et al., 2013).   In terms of a methodology, under YPAR, youth are positioned as active partners in the research process, whose perspectives, experiences and expertise in the world matter to the research agenda. Throughout YPAR, university or adult researchers conduct research with the youth, rather than on the youth (Rodriguez & Brown, 2009; Sato, 2013). This is different than other forms of research where youth are typically positioned passive subjects Ð who are observed and written about (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008). YPAR positions youth as co-researchers and allows them to identify problems, to design investigations, to interpret data, and to take action to transform the unjust situations. This requires a collaborative process and mutual beneficial relationships, and the authority during the research process is shared between the adult and the youth researchers (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008). Furthermore, YPAR assumes that the youth who have been historically marginalized possess Òrevealing wisdom about the history, structure, consequences, and the fracture points in unjust social arrangementÓ (Fine, 2008, p. 215). Thus, the youthsÕ voice, lived experiences, and histories become legitimate intellectual resources in YPAR projects (Morrell, 2006).    109  YPAR also embodies a pedagogical purpose for youth development and learning (Cammarota & Fine, 2008). Based on FreireÕs (1993) notion of praxis (i.e., critical reflection and actions), YPAR aims at developing youthsÕ ability to critically recognize injustice and to take informed actions to transform the status quo (Bautista et al., 2013; Cammarota & Fine, 2008). Throughout YPAR, the participating youth realize that oppressive systems or subjugating discourses are malleable and subject to change, and that they possess the agency to make a difference (Cammarota & Fine, 2008). This discovery humanizes the youth, enabling them to Òrealize the equal capabilities and universal intelligence in all humans, while acknowledging the existence of problems as the result of social forces beyond his or her own doingÓ (Cammarota & Fine, 2008, p. 7).  Methods Youth Participants  A total of 16 youths participated in the YPAR project: 13 were African-American girls and boys, and three were white girls. They were mainly from grades 6Ð10 (ages 11Ð16) (Table 5.1). Most of them regularly attended a makerspace at their local Boys and Girls Club (BGC) and were part of the M4C program, which is a makerspace education program, during the 2014Ð2015 school year. The M4C program supported the youth in engaging in making/engineering design for sustainable communities while developing a productive identity in engineering/STEM.        110 Table 5.1. Youth Participants of the YPAR project Name (Pseudonym) Grade Gender Race/Ethnicity Previous involvement in M4C program Ivy 5th Female White No Macy 6th Female African American Yes  Ashlee 6th  Female African American Yes (1 year) Patricia 6th  Female African American Yes (1 year) Christopher 6th  Male African American Yes Rayna 6th Female African American No Mary 6th Female African American Yes (2 years) Dan 7th Male African American Yes (1 years) Samuel 7th Male African American Yes (2 years) Annabeth 7th Female White No Lily 7th Female African American Yes (2 years) Quentin 8th Male African American Yes (4 years) Jennifer 9th Female African American Yes (3 years) Fall 9th Female White Yes (4 years) Bria 9th Female African American No Caitlyn 10th Female African American Yes (4 years)  A Snapshot of the YPAR Project   The YPAR project was conducted in Great Lakes City, Michigan, in August 2015. The main goal of the project was to design a new youth-centered makerspace in a local afterschool club to challenge the traditional design/notion of makerspaces that may shape the participation of youth from non-dominant communities.    111  The YPAR project was initiated by informal conversations between mentors and youth who worked on making at the makerspace in the BGC. Although the youth liked the makerspace and enjoyed making in it, they also wanted to improve it. For instance, they hoped to acquire an independent space for the makerspace in the BGC. Due to the BGCÕs limited space and tight budget, the makerspace was placed in a multi-purpose space often used as a cafeteria, a dance classroom, or a taekwondo classroom. The youth had to store a few tools or machines such as laptops and a 3D printer in another space so that the other programs could fully use the space. When the youth had M4C program sessions in the makerspace every Tuesday and Thursday, other BGC youth ate snacks beside the makerspace. Since only an accordion door separated the cafeteria and the makerspace (Figure 5.1), the youth who were making in the makerspace were often disturbed by noise from the cafeteria. Thus, some of the youth often asked the mentors to move their makerspace to another area in the BGC, but they could not get permission from the BGC staff and the president due to space and budget issues.         Figure 5.1. Accordion Door between the Cafeteria and the Makerspace    112  While the makerspace mentors were planning an annual M4C summer camp at the end of the 2014Ð2015 school year, they heard that a meeting for the BGC executive board members would be held on August 25, 2015. In the meeting, board members were supposed to discuss the BGCÕs operations and budget for the following year. The mentors shared the information with the youth who were planning to join the M4C summer camp, and they began to discuss how to use this opportunity as a way to improve their makerspace in the BGC. They decided to design the M4C summer camp as a way to prepare a presentation to persuade the board members to take interest in the renovation of the makerspace. Although the youth had a few ideas on how to improve their makerspace in the BGC (e.g., securing an independent space for the makerspace), they hoped to research other makerspaces to gain insight into developing their own. At that time, none of them had visited other makerspaces aside from the one in the BGC. Consequently, the mentors and the youth decided to include field trips to three makerspaces in their community: two at a local university and one at a local science center. They also included a virtual tour to makerspaces in other cities via websites as a key research activity for their YPAR project. The YPAR project was mainly conducted from August 10Ð13, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., and on August 25, 2015, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. (total: 26 hours).   At the beginning of the YPAR project, the youth had time to share the projectÕs goal and plan so that all participants could be on the same page throughout the research process. The youth and the mentors, who included a science education professor, three doctoral students, and a pre-service teacher, had a whole group conversation in a room at a local university. In the conversation, the youth shared what they hoped to present at the meeting of BGC board members and what they wanted to discover from the project. They   113 also discussed what a makerspace meant, why they wanted a new makerspace at the BGC, and what it should look like.   After the goal and the plan for the YPAR project were shared, the mentors provided brief information about the makerspaces that would be investigated, including where they were, who/what those spaces were for, and how the youth could access them. The youth then discussed what data they wanted to collect at those makerspaces to design their new youth-centered makerspace at the BGC. Based on the discussion, the youth and mentors co-designed worksheets that helped the youth systematically collect the data. For example, one of the worksheets offered a space in which the youth recorded any design features of the makerspaces that made them feel safe and were engaging or welcoming. The youth also designed a worksheet that included key interview questions for the makerspacesÕ staff or managers (e.g., What do you do here? What do you like best about this place? What would you change about this place if you could?), with a space for their answers to the questions. The youth were then divided into four groups to facilitate the data collection. All members of each group had specific roles for the investigations (e.g., interviewers, photographers, and note takers).   After designing the research, the youth investigated the characteristics of makerspaces in other cities through virtual tours (Figure 5.2). Using the pictures and videos of the makerspaces posted on websites, the youth explored the design features of the makerspaces. In this activity, the youth were able to see what makerspaces in other cities looked like. They were also able to practice data collection methods before visiting makerspaces in their community. After that, the youth visited three local makerspaces. Two makerspaces were at a local university campus, and one makerspace was at a local   114 science center. During the visit, the youth examined the design features of the makerspaces, such as the layout, tools, equipment, and atmosphere (Figures 5.3). In particular, they studied what made them feel safe and what was engaging or welcoming. They also interviewed the staff or managers of the makerspaces using the list of questions in the worksheets they designed. Using iPads, portable cameras, and worksheets, the youth collaboratively collected the data.       Figure 5.2. Virtual Tours of Makerspaces                     Figure 5.3. Makerspace Investigation     115 In addition, the youth conducted research on the BGC. After investigating the local makerspaces, the youth visited the BGC and collected information about a possible space for the new makerspace. For example, to acquire accurate measurements of dimensions for sketching a new makerspace, the youth first measured the dimensions of the room in which their makerspace was originally placed (Figure 5.4). They also investigated other rooms and areas in the BGC and explored possible options for their new makerspace.          Figure 5.4. Measuring the Dimension of a BGC Room  Data Generation   Qualitative data were collected in August 2015 with the use of multiple methods, which included participant observations, group conversations, video diaries, and reviews of student artifact collections (Table 5.2). A subset of data from a larger research project was used for this study.   Participant observation. Participant observations were conducted in a local university, three local makerspaces, and a BGC between August 10, 2015 and August 13, 2015 and on August 25, 2015. The observations included, but were not limited to, 1)   116 when, where, and how the youth participants engaged in the YPAR project; 2) who they interacted with; and 3) what ideas, practices, and tools they leveraged and transformed. Each observation was videotaped, transcribed, and accompanied by field notes.   Group conversations. I conducted group conversations with the participants three times during the YPAR project. These conversations particularly happened right after each local makerspace was visited. These conversations focused on 1) what features of makerspaces stood out among the youth, 2) what made the youth feel safe and what was engaging or welcoming (or vice versa), and 3) what the new makerspace should look like. Each conversation was videotaped, transcribed, and accompanied by field notes.   Video reflection diaries. The participants recorded their reflections on activities each day during the YPAR project. Their reflections included 1) what activities they participated in, 2) what processes or results of the YPAR project stood out among the youth, and 3) how they would use the information they acquired in designing the new makerspace. The participants used iPads to record their video reflection diaries; each diary was transcribed.   Youth artifact collection. All youthsÕ artifacts were also collected, including their worksheets, PowerPoint slides, digital designs of new makerspaces, movies, and M4C Makerspace Manifesto. Each artifact was scanned or saved as in electronic format.         117 Table 5.2. Data Generation Data Form  Data Generation Strategy Participant Observation ¥ Video recording of YPAR activities and field notes (26 hours) ¥ Planning sessions at a local university, fieldtrips to three local makerspaces and 1 Boys and Girls Club, and board of directorsÕ meeting  Group Conversation  ¥ Video recordings of group conversations after the visit of makerspaces and field notes (2 hours) ¥ Focus: 1) what features of makerspaces stood out among the youth, 2) what made the youth feel safe and what was engaging or welcoming (or vice versa), and 3) what the new makerspace should look like Video Diary ¥ 16 video diaries  ¥ Focus: 1) what activities the youth participated in, 2) what processes or results of the YPAR project stood out among the youth, and 3) how they would use the information in designing the new makerspace Artifact Collection ¥ YouthÕs worksheets, PowerPoint slides, digital designs of new makerspaces, movies, 3D model of the new makerspace, M4C Makerspace Manifesto, photos collected from fieldtrips, etc.   Data Analysis    Data analysis was guided by the YPAR framework and Strauss and CorbinÕs (1990) constant comparative method. The YPAR framework provided a lens with which to identify and analyze focal events from the data on how the youth frame the importance of a youth-centered and community-based makerspace, as well as its link to their desired identities and practices in making/engineering. I used constant comparative analysis to reduce the data into meaningful segments and assign names to these segments (i.e., coding the data), to combine the codes into broad themes, and to make claims based on these themes. I used ATLAS.ti software to organize and code the data.    118  Specifically, I first described the YPAR process and results in chronological order by drawing on the multiple data sources listed above. I then categorized focal events relating to the identification of social problems, the design of investigations, data collection, data analysis, and action taking. In the open coding stage, I analyzed the focal events and relevant data to mainly address the following questions: why does transforming makerspaces matter to the youth? Which makerspace designs discourage the youth from engaging in making? How does the design of makerspaces influence youth engagement in making? In what ways do the youth design their own makerspaces? How do the youth justify their design of makerspaces? What actions do they take to actualize their new makerspace?   Basing on the analysis of focal events, I generated and connected initial codes to create categories. I then created themes by selecting core categories and relating these to others. By reflecting on previous research literature and the YPAR framework, I made claims based on my organization of the themes.   Findings  In this section, I present how the YPAR unfolded highlighting key moments along the way. In telling about these moments, I underscore how youth framed the importance of youth-centered and community-based makerspaces, and how their framing ties to who they are and want to be in these spaces. I report on four critical events 1) A kid-friendly space: Unraveling power dynamics, 2) Taking a stance: ÒOur M4C Makerspace Manifesto,Ó 3) deciding on a ÒTeach, Show, Design, and MakeÓ workshop, and 4) conducting the workshop at a meeting of the board of directors of the BGC.    119 A Kid-friendly Space: Unraveling Power Dynamics  The youth spent the first full day of the action research investigating other makerspaces in their community (via field trips) and other cities (via virtual tours). The major forms of data they collected were observations and interviews. In this section I describe an important tension that emerged in the talk the youth mad about their observations. As Ivy stated after the first day of observations and interviews, ÒI didn't realize that most makerspaces are really just not for kids. We have a different view.Ó  This contrast noted by the youthÑof Òyouth friendlyÓ versus Òadult friendlyÓ (their language)Ñemerged strongly in their conversations about their observations, and became an important point of contention. In the debriefing conversation held with the youth at the end of their first full day, their dialog was animated as they built on each otherÕs ideas to flesh out this concern: Caitlyn:  I think it was a grown up makerspace, it wasnÕt colorful. Day [Mentor]: Grown up makerspace, wasnÕt colorful. [Everyone starts talking at once, Day calls on Patricia]  Patricia:  It was serious.  Day:  More serious.  Patricia: There was barely any space! Day:  Not enough space, Ivy what did you say? Ivy:  There werenÕt any games. Ashlee:  There were too many people.  Patricia:  There werenÕt fun enough experiments.   Mary:  It didnÕt make you feel welcomed.     120 Patricia:  It made you feel boring, itÕs boring. A kid makerspace would be colorful, youÕd do fun experiments; youÕd do serious but fun experiments.   Mary:   I thought thereÕd be stuff like laid out for you to do.  Quentin:  There was a lot of space but it wasnÕt open.  (Group conversation, August 10, 2015)  Notice above, how the youth describe their observations. For example, Caitlyn says that Òit was a grown-up makespaceÓ  and Mary says she does not feel Òwelcomed.Ó The youth were frustrated, and their observations emerged as critiques of the maker spaces they visited. I did not (and the other mentors did not) expect this critique. We expected that their trips to the other makerspaces would spark interest in ideas they had for their space; not critiques of these other spaces. But we began to see the youthsÕ dialog (as evidence above and in the fuller discussion) showing attention to concern about power dynamics in terms of about both a) what they were allowed to (Òno gamesÓ, no ÒexperimentsÓ) and b) how they felt (Òtoo seriousÓ, ÒboringÓ, Ònot colorfulÓ, Ònot welcomedÓ and Òcrowded.Ó). I will return to this point later in the discussion.  The mentors sought to flip the question around in order to have the youth use their critiques to point towards design elements of makerspaces that they wanted to see in place that might attend to these concerns: Angie [mentor]:  Can I go back to a comment someone made a minute ago? I was really intrigued by the comment that there wasnÕt enough stuff laid out and even if there was stuff out there, you didnÕt have good ideas [for how to use it].  So what does that mean, what would you like to see then?   (Group conversation, August 10, 2015)    121  The conversation which ensued, while raising ideas of things they wanted to see (e.g., Ashlee: Òmore wires!Ó, Mary: ÒInspirationÓ, Samuel: ÒSmall storage spacesÓ, Rayna: ÒWorking stationsÓ), continued to focus on their critique, this time with more direct focus on how the space marginalized youth. In the transcript segment below, we see how Patricia is frustrated that they could not touch the equipment. Patricia:  I heard the word no because you guys said we couldnÕt touch that board cutter and Ð  Day [mentor]:  So there was stuff you werenÕt allowed to touch.  Patricia: Yes.  I want to be able to touch everything. Day:  Okay you want to be able to touch everything.  Patricia:  They should have put stuff out for us to do, I didnÕt want to just sit there and be looking at it likeÉ Day:  You donÕt want to sit there and be looking at it.  I like that. Patricia:  Sit there and look at it, not be looking at it.  (Group conversation, August 10, 2015)   In fact, all 13 sets of youth-authored notes, all of the youth consistently noted that the spaces they visited were not colorful, did not have tools kids could access because they were too high or locked up. When tools were present there were no visible instructions on how to use the things that were there.    122 At the same time, as mentors, we noticed that some of the ideas they were raising were not really captured in the initial observation and interview criteria. And, so we decided to re-orient the interviews and observation criteria.   Angie:  So I am wondering, you know weÕre going to another makerspace tomorrow, and IÕm wondering is there anything from this conversation right now that gives you ideas about different questions you want to ask the person thatÕs in charge?  Like one question that comes to my mind is Ôdo you actually take more stuff out when people are here?Õ  Ashlee:  Yeah! Angie:  Now that youÕve had the experience of being in a makerspace you have to be a little bit smarter about what you want to look for, what other things you might ask.   Stephen:  What invention would you make to save the world if you could?ÉI asked IvyÕs dad [an engineer] that but I forgot to write it down.  Katana [to Annabeth]:  Did you come up with a question? Annabeth:  Yup. Katana:  WhatÕs your question? Annabeth:  How many people are usually in your makerspace at a time?   Katana:  Oh thatÕs an interesting question! [To Rayna] Do you have a question? [Rayna nods her head yes] Katana:  WhatÕs your question? Rayna:  My question is, Òwhat should I have for a question?Ó   123 Day:  Oh you could really be asking people what should I be asking you! Caitlyn:  How about what kind of things have been invented here?  (Group conversation, August 10, 2015)   What seemed particularly interesting in this exchange was how the questions the young people came up with focused on their uniquely youth-centered and community-oriented ideas about making. SamuelÕs question: ÒWhat invention would you make to save the world if you could?Ó were later adapted by the youth to include a second and third follow on question: ÒDoes the makerspace have what you need to make that inventionÓ ÒWhat kinds of tools would you addÓ? These follow on question cemented their stance that making ought to be for something. That the youth also cared about the things that could not touch or see, also pushed to the fore the power dynamics they were implicitly critiquing. Rayna suggested three questions along these lines:  ÒWhat is there that I cannot see?Ó ÒWhat questions should I be asking [that I have not asked]Ó?  ÒWhat would you change if you could?Ó Thus, in these initial observations of makerspaces, the youth began to articulate a critique of the maker movement as positioning them as outsiders. This initial critique was focused primarily on how they felt as youth Ð unable to access tools because of their height or because they were not allowed, finding the spaces drab and boring, and as places lacked a sense of playfulness.    124 A second critique began to emerge through the interviews largely around the purpose of the space, which was evident in both SamuelÕs and RaynaÕs question contributions: Why do we make, and does the makerspace let us act on our concerns. In the next section, we will see how youth because to merge these concerns together as they articulated their vision for a makerspace.  Taking a Stance: ÒOur M4C Makerspace ManifestoÓ   One critical turning point of the YPAR project was the in-the-moment decision youth made to collaboratively write a ÒM4C Makerspace Manifesto,Ó in which they arrived at a definition of a makerspace. The writing of the manifesto was not a planned activity, but rather one that emerged out of what seemed to be deep the youthÕs frustration about feeling like their ideas, desires and hopes for making and makerspaces stood in contrast to how they experienced the broader maker movement, and how they were positioned as young people in that movement. As teacher-researchers in this YPAR, we found that we had to re-group, and offer possible new directions the youth might take with their work, that drew upon their important insights. We decided to task the youth with making short movies that communicated what they thought were the most important ideas from their findings. They were given wide berth in this task. They had three requirements they needed to meet: a) the movie should not be longer than 3-5 minutes in length, b) should explain to others what a makerspace is, and c) use at least four different pieces of evidence to convince others of the importance of having a new makerspace at the Boys and Girls Club. They were given free reign on how to make the movie. For example some groups   125 used I-movie to cull together images, text and music to present their ideas, while others combined I-movie and Photobooth to incorporate action and dialog among the youth researchers. They also had freedom to determine what forms of data they wanted to incorporate (e.g., photos from field trips, interview clips, and worksheets) and how they would use that data to convince the viewer of the importance of their makerspace. They were allowed to use written text, music, and transition effects to make their movies compelling and appealing. The young people were divided into four groups, each of which created a short movie.  The construction of these movies took a significant amount of time. The youth sketched their movies, wrote scripts and looked across their data to find evidence that they felt was compelling to their points. While space prevents me from discussing the process for all four of the movies produced, I will describe a couple in some detail. The first movie was entitled,  ÒWe Need a MakerspaceÉ the MovieÓ (Patricia and Ashlee). The two girls who made this movie began by scripting what a makerspace was to them (see Figure 5.5). We can see in this script that the girls are interested in having the space and the tools to Òlearn, create and buildÓ the things they want to make. This is important given that at the Boys and Girls Club their makerspace area was shared with a multitude of other programs, including Taekwondo club, the snack program, and Girl Scouts, among many other things. However, in the first part of their script they also point towards how all of the makerspaces they visited around the Lansing area were Òadult friendlyÓÉ Òdull, no colors and cluttered.Ó  Later they go on to compare and contrast adult and kid friendly makerspaces in terms of color, access, welcoming, and   126 safety. In constructing their movie, they included images from their visits, interview data and images (see Figure 5.6), observations, and Internet research.  Figure 5.5. Patricia and Ashlee's Script   Figure 5.6. 1 Min 12 Sec into Movie, Patricia Interviewing a Makerspace Staff    127  A second movie entitled,  ÒMakerspace, Makerspace, We want a MakerspaceÓ (Annabeth, Ivy, and Rayna). The three girls who made this movie began by playing with power tools and filming themselves in Photobooth playing with the tools and riffing on their ideas about a makerspace. They produced several, nearly identical scenes in terms of talk, although each one showed the girls interacting with different power tools (see Figures 5.7 & 5.8). In all of these scenes, which made their way into their 2 minute movie, they voiced the importance of having opportunities to learn, to use a wide range of tools and to make things that will help the world become a better place. They also emphasized the importance of access to these things for kids. As one scene described: Rayna: Kids should have access to makerspaces at their clubs Annabeth: ItÕs fun! Ivy: They can make things that save the world! Rayna: And, it keeps kids learning! Ivy: Yah!!!! Rayna: Oh yah!        Figure 5.7. Girls Interacting with Power Tools 1   128         As the girls became more animated in their movie making, they began chanting ÒMakerspace, Makerspace, We Want a Makerspace!Ó.  By the end of their production, the whole room of youth voluntarily began changing with them, jumping up and down, as the camera zoomed around the room (Figure 5.9).   Figure 5.9. Youth Chanting "Makerspace, Makerspace, We Want a Makerspace!"  Figure 5.8. Girls Interacting with Power Tools 2   129 When the four groups completed their tasks, we asked them to present their movies to the whole group. After they had all watched the four movies together, one of the mentors, Day, encouraged the young people to call out their definition of a makerspace, based on their research and their experience of making the movies:  Day: We do need to come up with a definition of what a makerspace is. The M4C definition! Lilly: Can I do it more than one? Day: There could be more than one definition. Maybe we can make a combined definition, [using] all the data weÕve collected.   Macy: A place where people can invent. Day: A place where people can invent! ThatÕs Macy. Should we write this all down?  [All youth and mentors]: Yeah!  (Session Video, August 12, 2015)     Lilly, one of the young people, asked Day whether they could offer more than one definition of a makerspace, since she believed there were a number of critical ideas that should be included in the definition. Many of the youth began to simultaneously chime in their agreement on this point, and they decided to create Òa combined definitionÓ of a makerspace, which they named a Òmanifesto.Ó Day began to record these ideas on her computer, which was projecting onto the classroom screen. (Figure 5.10). The outcome was ÒOur M4C Makerspace ManifestoÓ (Figure 5.11).    130           OUR M4C MAKERSPACE MANIFESTO [To us, a makerspace is] A place where you can invent, have fun, and make stuff to save the world. You can gather to create and learn, using green energy. It should be open to all kids at the Boys and Girls Club, so we can learn and have fun, with room for little kids AND for big kids.  It should be kid-friendly, colorful, and have a lot of space and things that you can make stuff with, like a lot of tools, lockers, computers/tablets, 3D printers, safety goggles/gloves, a first aid kit, safety precautions, and instructions/rules/schedules on whiteboard and chalkboard walls too. And whiteboard tables, chalkboard doors, storage carts, snacks, sliding Òteacher chairsÓ with wheels and armrests, and shelves under the tables, and lots of power outlets on tables and hanging from the ceiling with extension cords, so we donÕt have to go all around the room, and we can just stay where weÕre working and get more work done.  Michigan State already has one. Our Boys and Girls Club doesnÕt have one and kids should have more opportunities like that. Most kids donÕt. Instead of people asking ÒwhatÕs a makerspace?Ó, they will know because itÕs open to ALL kids. And the kids will tell their parents and their parents will tell their friends, and their friends will tell the whole entire world from generation to generation. And itÕs all because of us.  Figure 5.11. ÒOur M4C Makerspace ManifestoÓ  Figure 5.10. Creating "Our M4C Makerspace Manifesto"   131  What can we learn from the manifesto? ÒOur M4C Makerspace ManifestoÓ includes three key messages that the young people hoped to send to community members and the board of directors of the BGC. First, they defined what a makerspace is for. They viewed a makerspace as more than a workspace in which they could design and build gadgets or crafts. As can be seen in the first paragraph of the manifesto (ÒA place where you can invent, have fun, and make stuff to save the world,Ó ÒYou can gather to create and learn using green energyÓ), the young people viewed a makerspace as a place in which they could make/invent something for the public good, while also having Òfun.Ó From earlier conversations with the youth, having ÒfunÓ in STEM meant Òdoing science that mattersÓ and Òdoing things that make a difference.Ó During their interviews with staff at local makerspaces, they noticed that most participants in or visitors to makerspaces engaged in making for Òtheir school projects,Ó Òhobbies,Ó or ÒprofitÓ. However, our young people wanted to highlight the importance of making for their communities.   Second, they described whom a makerspace is for. As noted in the first and third paragraphs of the manifesto, the young people declared that a new makerspace should be built in and open to all in the BGC (ÒIt should be open to all kids at the Boys and Girls ClubÉÓ ÒMichigan State already has one. Our Boys and Girls Club doesnÕt have one, and kids should have more opportunities like that.Ó). During their visits to local makerspaces, they heard from the staff or managers that those makerspaces were designed for Òadults,Ó including college students and science museum staff, not for young people or kids. They saw it as a problem that Òmost kids donÕtÓ have opportunities to access makerspaces in their community. By constructing a new makerspace in the BGC, in which many of the young people in their city spend a lot of time after school, they   132 hoped to see more young people or children get to know about makerspaces and to experience making in those spaces.   Last, the young people described what a makerspace they hoped to build in the BGC looked like, details of which are included in the second paragraph of the manifesto. For example, they emphasized ÒcolorfulÓ design in order to create a more welcoming, youth-friendly environment. They pointed out that Ògrown-up makerspacesÓ were not colorful, which gave the impression that working in the space was Òserious,Ó not Òfun.Ó They also underscored Òsafety.Ó In local makerspaces, they had seen a lot of Òthings we couldnÕt touch,Ó such as hardware tools or machines with sharp edges or parts, which might restrict their participation and activity. Thus, they wanted to see Òsafety goggles/gloves,Ó Òa first aid kit,Ó and Òsafety precautionsÓ in a youth-centered makerspace.  Furthermore, they expected to have furniture or equipment in the makerspace that would enable them to collaborate with one another easily and to work efficiently. During their virtual tour of makerspaces in other cities via the Internet and field trips to local makerspaces, the young people had seen some makerspaces with large whiteboards on the wall, so that anyone in the space could write down or visualize their ideas and share them with others (Figure 5.12). In order to facilitate brainstorming ideas or discussing design problems with their peers and mentors, the young people hoped to have facilities such as Òwhiteboard and chalkboard walls,Ó Òwhiteboard tables,Ó and Òchalkboard doors.Ó They also wanted to have power outlets hanging from the ceiling with extension cords, like those they had seen in their investigations (Figure 5.13), and Òsliding Ôteacher   133 chairsÕ with wheels and armrests,Ó so that they could choose to work in one place or move around to work with others.                  Designing a Workshop: Teach, Show, Design, and Make!  One of the youth, Rayna, asked one of the mentors (Angie) if they could show their movies at the Boys and Girls Club to convince them that they should have a makerspace. In watching the movies, two of the mentors (Day and Angie) began to notice Figure 5.12. A Whiteboard Wall Figure 5.13. Power Outlets Hanging from the Ceiling   134 that they grouped around 4 themes: Teach, Show, Design, and Make. I briefly explain what the mentorÕs pointed out to the youth below about these four emergent themes. 1) Teach the board members what a makerspace is and why we need one in the BGC: Patrices and AshleeÕs movie shared above had a strong ÒteachÓ theme, as they used their movie to tell others about what a makerspace is. Their movie provides a definition of a makerspace, and shows close up images of people doing things in makerspace. It highlight tools, signage, activities, and artifacts. It foreground what Òcould beÓ different about a youth-friendly makerspace. 2) Show the board members what we can do in the makerspace: The movie that Samuel, Christopher and Dan made (not discussed above) presented images of ÒinventionsÓ they had made at the club Òwithout a makerspaceÓ and left the viewer with the question ÒImagine what we could invent if we had a makerspace!?Ó  These themes became Òworking groupsÓ that the youth worked in to plan a workshop for the Club Leaders. 3) Design our makerspace using a digital design tool to show the board members what we want our makerspace to look like:  Jennifer, Lilly and MacyÕs movie bridged both Teaching and Making, as they described what makerspaces are and why they are important for kids. As they stated, ÒIn makerspaces kids and adults learn how to use their creativity to make awesome inventionsÉ It is important for kids to have a safe and welcoming place to learn.Ó As they talked more about their movie in their video diaries and conversation groups, they expressed more strongly that how kids are supported in being creative and in feeling welcomed was tied to how the space Òallowed a kid to make.Ó   135 4) Make a 3D model of equipment or furniture we want to have in our makerspace; Annabeth, Rayna and IvyÕs movie had a strong design theme, as they used their movie to describe what the makerspace might look like, and the kinds of things it might include. RaynaÕs reflection on the movie was sharply focused on the importance of her holding the power screw driver throughout the movie (She can be seen holding and turning on the screw driver in each of the scenes). She said that was important because she had not used a power tool before, and it is important for kids to have access to the things they need to make the inventions they need to Òsave the world.Ó The youth self selected into these four groups, each focusing on one of these themes, and began to plan what they would present to the Club Leaders. What each group did in their groups is described below.    Teach group. This group, comprised of Patricia and Ashlee, focused on explaining what a makerspace is and why the young people needed a makerspace in the BGC. The youth in the Teach Group thought carefully about what they wanted to include in their segment of the workshop. As we can see from their planning documents (Figure 5.14), they felt it was important to help their audience ÒfeelÓ they way they feel when they make things. As they scripted their presentation, they wrote: When we make stuff, we feel awesome because it makes you feel like you can do stuff and you have the power. Everybody needs to feel that feeling. Everybody needs to know how that feels (see opening quote)   136  Figure 5.14. Patricia and Ashlee's Planning Document  They also guessed that few board members would know the definition of a makerspace, just like many people in the community. So, their plan was to teach the board members and thereby encourage them to support building a new makerspace in the BGC. The young people first edited the movies they had created earlier, and combined them to ensure they would send out clear messages (Figure 5.15). Their movie particularly emphasized that they would not want an Òadult-friendlyÓ makerspace but a Òkid-friendlyÓ makerspace that was more Òcolorful,Ó and Òa safe place and welcoming place.Ó It also highlighted that all kids should have access to the makerspace at the BGC, because it allowed them to have ÒfunÓ, to make something Òto save the worldÓ, and to keep them Òlearning.Ó In addition to the movie, this group created a PowerPoint presentation, in which they introduced the process and the results of their YPAR project, in order to emphasize that their ideas came from their own research on makerspaces (Figure 5.16).    137                    The young people also decided to devise a number of interactive activities (ÒMakerspace Challenge GameÓ), to allow board members to experience how the children may ÒfeelÓ when they engage in making in the makerspaces, and how they learn STEM-related ideas or practices in the makerspace. For instance, the young people gave the board members Figure 5.15. A Teach GroupÕs Movie Figure 5.16. A Slide from the Teach GroupÕs PowerPoint Presentation   138 the opportunity to use LittleBits, a system of electronic modules that snap together with magnets, to understand how electric circuits work. Board members were asked to build electric circuits with the LittleBits kits, to turn on lights or activate buzzers.    Show group. This group, comprised of Christopher, Dan, Quentin, and Sameul, focused on showing the board members what youngsters can make in makerspaces, in the hope of helping the board members to understand the importance of building a new makerspace in the BGC. The group first decided to introduce a couple of inventions that some of them had developed in the previous year in the M4C program, such as a wind-powered anti-bully jacket, a solar-powered bird house, and a human-powered light-up umbrella. They created a PowerPoint presentation that included photos of their inventions and descriptions of what each invention was for, how it worked, and what green energy it used as power sources. For example, they presented the wind-powered anti-bully jacket, named the ÒPhantom Jacket,Ó designed for Òkeep[ing] people safe,Ó and described how it works (ÒIf you hit the alarm, it lets other people know we are in troubleÓ), emphasizing that the jacket is powered by wind (Figure 5.17).           139              The message to board members here was that, in a new makerspace, the young people would want to make within and for their community. By actively responding to local/global social or community issues (e.g., bullying, climate change) by their making/engineering designs in the new makerspace, they hoped to contribute to developing their community. The makerspace for them would be a place that supported them in making a difference within and for their community. The last slide in their PowerPoint made the point explicitly (ÒThese are ways to help our community! Help us to get a better makerspace for our future!!!Ó) (Figure 5.18).     Figure 5.17. The "Phantom Jacket," a Slide from the Show GroupÕs PowerPoint Presentation   140                Design group. This group, comprised of Macy, Jennifer, Lilly, Caitlyn, and Fall, created designs to show the board members what they want their makerspace to be like. The designs were based on the data they had collected, and were intended to allow the board members to actually ÒseeÓ the makerspace. The group used a digital design tool called Google SketchUp (Figure 5.19). Rayna, one of girls in the group, described what she drew in her design as follows:    Here is a thinking couch plus a dancing couch plus a trampoline. You can jump on the trampoline to help you think. There are tables with outlets on them. There is a sink to wash your hands. And there is a whiteboard and there is a printer, a 3D printer. And laptops right here and doughnuts and Starbucks coffee. And there is a cabinet right here. (Session video transcript, August 13, 2015)  Figure 5.18. Last Slide in PowerPoint Presentation by the Show Group   141  Interestingly, RaynaÕs comment reminds us why it is important to incorporate young peopleÕs own perspective into designing makerspaces. Rayna was well aware that young people could not work in makerspaces Òall the time.Ó She believed that they sometimes need time to Òthink,Ó which sitting on Òa thinking couchÓ or ÒdancingÓ or Òjumping on a trampolineÓ could help them to do. Ray also pointed out that the new makerspace had to have a snack bar, as Ray and many of her friends had found that they could not actively engage in making in the makerspace at the BGC because they were hungry after school.                Make group. This group, comprised of Annabeth, Ivy, and Rayna, focused on developing a 3D model of parts of the new makerspace (e.g., equipment or furniture). During their research, they had seen a 3D model of a makerspace created by college students (Figure 5.20). Although the ÒDesign GroupÓ planned to visualize their new Figure 5.19. Design of New Makerspace Created in Google SketchUp   142 makerspace, some of the young people said it would be a good idea to make 3D models of equipment or furniture that would be placed in the new makerspace, to bring the impression of the space to life more clearly.                    Using Play-Doh, a cardboard box, and LEGO toys, this group created mini 3D models of the makerspace and the furniture and equipment that they wanted placed in it (Figure Figure 5.21. 3D Play-doh Model of the New Makerspace Figure 5.20. A 3D model of a Makerspace Created by College Students   143 5.21). For example, they made a table with a whiteboard on top, which would enable people to visualize and share their ideas. They also made shelves on which they could store tools, materials, or works in progress. On the wall of the model of the makerspace hung Òhelpful signs.Ó All the furniture and equipment was colorful. The young people even made an outside space with Òa pool,Ó Òa thinking trampoline,Ó and Òa bounce house,Ó so that they could work but also Òhave funÓ at the same time.      The three girls in the group also wrote a script that described their 3d model. While I will not include the full script here, it is important to note the enduring themes that move from the earlier videos, to the manifesto, to their 3-d space on: a) safe, welcoming and colorful spaces to learn, b) access to tools to think and make, and c) being able to do things that make a difference. As one part of the script describes:  LetÕs ask one of the students what they are doing! Tell me about what youÕre doing in here? WeÕre building new things in our makerspace. WeÕre using drills and computers to design things, 3-d printer to print out some of the materials that we need. Do you see the signs on the walls?  These are to keep us safe and learn how to use certain tools and equipment, and they keep the room colorful and happy! . We have made lots of things. A light up umbrella, an alarm jacket, a bully app, a light up football, and a phantom jacket!     144 Conducting the Workshop: Educating and Transforming the BGC  Approximately two weeks after the workshop was designed, the young people conducted the workshop at the meeting of the BGCÕs executive board members (Figure 5.22). After the BGC presidentÕs and a lead mentorÕs brief introduction of the young people and their YPAR project, the youth held the workshop, which proceeded for about 30 minutes.   The workshop began with the movie edited by ÒTeach Group.Ó The movie explained what a makerspace is and why the youth need a new makerspace in the BGC. The young people then presented the process and the results of their YPAR project with PowerPoint slides. After that, the young people who worked in the ÒDesign GroupÓ showed the board members their design of the new makerspace created with Google SketchUp program. They also explained what equipment, furniture, or tools were included in their design. Then, the ÒMake GroupÓ demonstrated its 3D model of the makerspace and its parts made up of play-doh. The ÒShow GroupÓ also presented the PowerPoint slides that included photos of the young peopleÕ inventions created in previous years and the descriptions of what each invention was for, how it worked, and what power sources were used. After this, the ÒTeach GroupÓ led the interactive activity it designed, and the group asked the board members to build electric circuits with LittleBits kits and to turn on lights or activate buzzers (Figure 5.23).     145                       Around the end of the workshop, Ashlee and Patricia who worked in the ÒTeach GroupÓ read the memo they wrote during the designing the workshop. They emphasized the goal of the workshop and why they need a new makerspace in the BGC:   Figure 5.22. Youth Conducting Their Workshop to Board Members at the BGC Figure 5.23. Board Members Building Electric Circuits with LittleBits Kits    146 The purpose of todayÕs meeting is to learn about makerspaces and for you to feel how we feel when we make stuff everyday. When we make stuff, we feel awesome because it makes you feel like you can do stuff and you have the power. Everybody needs to feel that feeling. Everybody needs to know how that feels. If you start young, youÕll get better while youÕre in school and youÕll learn faster and get your degree and get into a better school that teaches you better engineering information. And you need to follow your dreams. If you want to be in engineering, follow your dreams. If you want to be the president, follow your dreams. Anything you want to be, you can be.   We want a makerspace because we want to feel like professionals who know and who can have the courage to build things and help other people. We want a makerspace because it will make our job easier. If we just have one room we wonÕt even have enough space to build stuff, everything will just be everywhere. We have to use the same place where everything fits in and itÕs not enough room. ThatÕs why weÕre asking you to invest in our makerspace so we can build things. We want to take our M4C to the next level. M4C is helpers. We can make this a worldwide thing. So everybody can see how it feels to be a builder, an engineer, to make something.   If people donÕt have the material to make stuff they can have a M4C and it can be a community. A lot of people want to build stuff but donÕt have stuff to build it with. A community makerspace offers stuff to people who need stuff to build with.   147 They can build anything. In a community, you feel welcome. If you donÕt feel welcome then you wonÕt want to go help people build stuff. If we help people learn about what this stuff is, theyÕll know. A makerspace is a community because itÕs all of us there  (Memo, August 25, 2015)   Here, we can see how the young people frame the importance of making experience in their everyday lives and for their future. As can be seen in the first paragraph of the memo, the young people wanted the board members to Òfeel how we feel when we make stuff everydayÓ during the workshop. They assert that they felt ÒawesomeÓ and empowered when making, and that Òeverybody needs to feel that feeling.Ó Furthermore, they argued that early making experiences could lead them to a ÒbetterÓ future and make their dreams come true (e.g., become engineers). Indeed, the youth viewed the making experience as a tool for empowerment and for creating a new trajectory in their future. The memo also represents how the young people view a makerspace. As noted in the second paragraph of the memo, the youth framed a makerspace as a place that enables them to feel like Òprofessionals who know and who can have the courage to build things and help other people.Ó Here, we can see that the youth continued to see a makerspace not simply as a workspace where they make something. Rather, they saw it as a place in which they make something and help other people. The youth also expressed that their new makerspace should be open to all community members who want to build or make things, and it should provide them with the materials/tools/equipment they need, as expressed in the last paragraph. However, the youth emphasized the importance of having   148 a welcoming environment in addition to maintaining openness to the Òcommunity makerspace.Ó   The Q&A time between the youth and the board members followed Ashlee and PatriciaÕs presentation at the end of the workshop. The board members actively asked the youth a number of questions, including ÒWhatÕs a feature of the tables that you really liked?Ó, ÒWhat is the name of the anti-bullying app?Ó, and ÒDo you all work together on everything? Or do you work in smaller groups?Ó Obviously, the board members were interested in what the youth have done, and they wanted to know more about the details of their findings. They also highly praised the young peopleÕs work. One of the board members expressed his amazement by saying, ÒThis is huge!Ó Finally, the board members promised that they would discuss how they can support the BGC in developing a new makerspace.   Surprisingly, a few weeks later, the BGC announced a new plan for expanding its building so that a new makerspace would be made available for all BGC members. The BGCÕs board of directors also decided to invest money by offering the required equipment, tools, or materials for the new makerspace on the basis of the design that the youth proposed during the workshop. By planning and conducting the YPAR project, the youth educated the BGCÕs board of directors who would otherwise never understand the significance of the new makerspace; the youth eventually transformed the BGC by facilitating the building of a new makerspace. Indeed, the youth made a ÒhugeÓ difference!      149 Discussion   The story of the youth in this study shows how young people framed the importance of youth-centered and community-based makerspaces and how this framing ties to who they are and who they want to be in these spaces. The findings of the study suggest two major themes on designing inclusive makerspaces for young people from non-dominant communities. First, the youthÕs engagement with YPAR empowered them to expose and challenge a set of power dynamics that shape their participation in making and makerspaces. They framed these power dynamics in terms of adult versus youth friendly. However, as we will see, their critiques Ð and responses to those critiques Ð weave in powerful things about race, class, age and opportunity.  Second, the young people contested the boundaries of making and makerspaces, re-positioning what it meant to make and be a maker.  YPAR for Empowering the Youth to Challenge ÒAdult-friendlyÓ Makerspaces  The youthÕs story shows that engaging in YPAR empowered them to challenge Òadult-friendlyÓ makerspaces that historically marginalized the participation of young people in community makerspaces. Drawing upon the tools of YPAR, the youth found that makerspaces were not designed for them, as youth, but for adults or college students.  They framed their critique along three lines: a) what they were allowed to do, b) who they were supported to do it with, c) how they were allowed to be.      150  What the youth were allowed to do. The YPAR project identified a number of design features of makerspaces that marginalized the participation of young people. They noted equipment they could not touch and tools that were stored too high or were locked up. They noted a lack of spaces to think and be playful, especially when they felt frustrated. These realizations caused deep frustration among the youth, leading them to push back on the focus of the data collection so that they could delve deeper into these concerns.  They added questions which required the people they interviewed to name what kinds of things they wanted to make Òto save the worldÓ and whether their makerspace had the right tools and resources to do so. When they wrote their ÒM4C Makerspace ManifestoÓ they put attention on what they could do, which stands in contrast to these critiques. They explicitly stated in their manifesto that they wanted to Òmake stuff to save the worldÓ and that they needed to Òhave a lot space and things that you can make stuff withÓ and proceeded to name the different types of tools and resources. Then, by organizing the ÒTeach, Show, Design, and MakeÓ workshop, the youth attempted to visualize their ideas of a new makerspace that enables their participation in creating it within the community. The young people also conducted the workshop at the board of directorsÕ meeting to educate this group about makerspaces and convince it on the necessity of building a new makerspace in the BGC. These actions of the youth eventually resulted in the support of BGC board members for the new makerspace based on the youthÕs proposal.     151  Who they were supported to make with. While this might seem trivial, that the youth clearly implicated their community in their makerspace manifesto is important. Recall they wrote, ÒOur Boys and Girls Club doesnÕt have one and kids should have more opportunities like that. Most kids donÕt. Instead of people asking ÒwhatÕs a makerspace?Ó, they will know because itÕs open to ALL kids. And the kids will tell their parents and their parents will tell their friends, and their friends will tell the whole entire world from generation to generation.Ó  The youth are positioning their families and community members as insider to the makerspace that they envision. This was important to youth for many reasons, one of which was about giving access to a wide range of making resources to their community. As Patricia and AshleeÕs memo to the Board of Directors reminded us: If people donÕt have the material to make stuff they can have a M4C and it can be a community. A lot of people want to build stuff but donÕt have stuff to build it with. A community makerspace offers stuff to people who need stuff to build with. They can build anything." At the same time, they also wanted that access for themselves Ð to grant them greater access to STEM, a field, which for too long, as marginalized young people of color. Again, as Patricia and AshleeÕs memo reminded: If you start young, youÕll get better while youÕre in school and youÕll learn faster and get your degree and get into a better school that teaches you better engineering information. And you need to follow your dreams. If you want to be in engineering, follow your dreams.   152 What is further to note here is that gaining access to STEM is not just about their futures, but their dreams for themselves and their communities: ÒWe want to take our M4C to the next level. . .So everybody can see how it feels to be a builder, an engineer, to make something.Ó While these are all concerns about a youth-friendly space, they speak loudly to how that space must work for youth of color and youth growing up in poverty. To an extent, the youthÕs work deviates from the prototypical maker who is the Òindependent,Ó ÒindividualisticÓ Òdo-it-yourselfÓ learner. Instead of being primarily motivated by their individual interests, the youth in their YPAR work define their engagement through collectively formed interests, and often interests that carried deep meanings on issues of race, power, oppression and danger. In their Workshop they ÒshowedÓ projects which defined their work Ð a phantom jacket meant to keep them safe as they walk; an anti-bully app which leverages crowdsourcing to share information about bully locations, and a light up football for playing in the dark when the streetlight do not work. They youth were concerned about problems that are defined through interactions with others and leverage othersÕ experiences and struggles Ð which they see themselves as a part of Ð towards making. These maker ÒprojectsÓ are distinctly different from the regular maker projects undertaken in prototypical makerspaces (e.g., projects discussed in Make magazine).  This collective form of engagement also speaks to the knowledge communities in which youth participate, and which cross into the makerspace: peer, family, on-line, STEM, and local communities.    153 How the youth were allowed to be. The findings of the YPAR project also indicate the youthÕs design preferences for the makerspace and how that ties to how they are allowed to be. For example, they wanted a ÒcolorfulÓ design to create a welcoming and fun environment. They preferred furniture or equipment that promotes collaboration with others in the makerspace, such as whiteboard tables and sliding teacher chairs. The youth also emphasized the importance of having a space where they can have a Òthink timeÓ by sitting on Òa thinking couch,Ó or a space where they can ÒdanceÓ or Òjump on a trampoline.Ó  (see Table 5.3). Table 5.3: Criteria for a Youth-centered Makerspace Criteria YouthÕs design criteria Welcoming Colorful chairs, walls, carpets and lockers Lockers to keep projects safe while not being worked on Tools not locked up Tools and materials at heights kids can reach Signs around the room to provide information on how to use tools Collaborative Big tables Chairs with wheels Tables with white board tops Chalkboard walls and whiteboard walls Fun/Playful Colorful Dance floor Music Disco ball Snacks Couch, hammock or bean bags Games Recognizing difficult nature of work Thinking station that one could use at any time A place to hang up Òmess upsÓ (to show other kids its OK to mess up) A playful space to blow off frustrations/steam Values iteration Hanging up rough drafts/mess ups Flexible flow Ð go to thinking station when ever you want Values making a difference Invites community Projects that Òsave the worldÓ Hang up/display previous projects like Òphantom jacketÓ    154  I believe that the criteria named by the youth in their vision for a makerspace push back against a movement that has positioned them as outsiders. Few studies on makerspaces have positioned the youth as the key stakeholders or subjects in the discourse of designing inclusive makerspaces. Most studies considered young people as simply visitors in makerspaces or as objects of study. Although researchers and practitioners have attempted to collaborate in designing inclusive makerspaces (e.g., Vossoughi et al. 2013), little research that empowers the youth in participating in the development of inclusive makerspaces has been conducted. The story of the youth illustrated in this study will contribute to broadening our dialogue on developing an inclusive makerspace for all young people.   Challenging the Boundaries of Making and Makerspaces   The story of the youth also shows that they challenged the traditional boundaries of making and makerspaces. The young people in the study defined makerspaces as having multi-layered meanings; these spaces were tied to who the youth are, who they want to be, and what they want to do in these spaces. For example, the young people viewed makerspaces as places where they can make something Òto save the worldÓ and Òfor their communityÓ as responsible members of the local/global community. Moreover, the youth did not define makerspaces as simply workspaces where they should engage solely in engineering/making; instead, they also viewed makerspaces as places to Òhave fun,Ó Òlearn,Ó and Òthink.Ó They thus hoped for makerspaces that can act as places to support them in their participation in a variety of activities.    155  The youth also saw the multi-faceted roles or values of making. For instance, the young people believed that making experiences in their everyday lives can empower them and allow them to feel Òawesome.Ó They wanted everybody in their community to feel the same way. They also asserted that accumulated making experiences can create a new pathway toward their future (e.g., becoming engineers). Thus, they needed a space in their community in which they can continue to participate in making.   This notion of making and makerspaces of the youth shaped what kind of makerspace they want to have in the BGC (simply represented as Òa youth-centered and community-based makerspaceÓ). The young people believed that Òadult-friendlyÓ makerspaces do not allow them to be who they want to be or do what they want to do, so they took initiatives to design and create a new makerspace in their community.   This finding implies that if we want to design or develop inclusive makerspaces for the youth or kids, we need to first understand their perceptions of making or makerspaces. As illustrated in this study, such views may be deeply connected to who these young people are, who they want to be, and what they want to do in the makerspace, which may be different from those of adults or outsiders.   Conclusion  In this chapter, the youthsÕ stories highlight the importance of involving young people as key stakeholders in discussions of the equity issues of makerspaces and how researchers and educators can support youth in participating in such discussions. The 16 youth who joined the YPAR project proved that they possessed Òrevealing wisdomÓ (Fine, 2008, p. 215) in their de-construction of the power dynamics embedded in Òadult-  156 friendlyÓ makerspaces, which have historically marginalized the participation of youth from non-dominant communities. Furthermore, these young people re-constructed the notion of makerspace (as Òyouth-centered and community-basedÓ) throughout the YPAR. More importantly, the work carried out in the YPAR finally resulted in securing support from the BGCÕs board members in building a new makerspace for the after-school club.                        157 CHAPTER SIX IMPLICATIONS    This chapter summarizes the implications of the findings from the three studies reported on in the previous chapters. The implications of the various findings are grouped into three themes: 1) teaching and learning in makerspaces, 2) designing makerspaces, and 3) research on makerspaces.   Implications for Teaching and Learning in Makerspaces  The findings of this study suggest that informal or makerspace educators must expand their views of teaching and learning in makerspaces. As illustrated in Chapter Three and Chapter Four, the youth makers did not learn only within the boundaries of the makerspaces. The youth makers acquired ideas, practices, tools, and social networks and relationships by navigating a variety of spaces, including their homes, schools, afterschool clubs, and communities. The things the youth makers acquired from these different spaces were then incorporated into the makerspaces (or vice versa). They also brought aspects of who they are, what they care about, and what they want to do into the makerspaces and into other spaces as well. The mentors who participated in this study also recognized that the youth makers all had funds of knowledge and different cultural practices that they brought to the makerspaces. This knowledge and cultural influence was an asset to the youth makers during their engineering/making and design of various projects. The mentors thus encouraged the youth makers to leverage this knowledge while engaging in engineering/making activities. As a result, the youth makers positioned themselves or were recognized by others as experts in certain fields. Because the youth   158 makers felt competent and knowledgeable in their respective areas of expertise, they did not hesitate to combine various ideas, practices, and tools. This resulted in the development of more creative and meaningful engineering/making projects within the makerspace. The youth makers also had more opportunities to respond to the sustained community issues that mattered most to them and to participate in their community via their engineering/making projects in the makerspace.   The findings of this study also indicated that youth makers were given different learning opportunities when they had access to non-traditional engineering/making tools, such as youth ethnographic tools. For example, as described in Chapter Four, the tools of youth ethnography and the interactions generated by those tools provided useful opportunities for the youth to better leverage their insider knowledge and to emphasize the important role they had personally played during engineering/making. These tools also allowed the youth to use their knowledge of their respective communities to facilitate deeper engagement in STEM/making practices. For example, the youth learned to understand the boundaries of design tasks, including the criteria and constraints of different tasks. Further work based on these results may focus on the effect of integrating non-traditional engineering/making tools into the teaching and learning models used in makerspaces.   Implications for Designing Makerspaces  The findings of this study have implications for the design of makerspaces used in the education of KÐ12 students or youth. As demonstrated by the stories of the youth who participated in the YPAR project in Chapter Five, it is crucial for makerspace designers   159 to treat youth as Subjects or partners and to share power with them during the design and development of makerspaces. The results of this study also shed light on the importance of including the voices, ideas, and perspectives of the youth when designing inclusive makerspaces. In Chapter Five, the youth identified the design features of Òadult-friendlyÓ makerspaces that may keep youth from participating in these makerspaces. These same features were not recognizable to adults. Furthermore, the youth in this study proposed a new youth-centered and community-based makerspace that reflected who they are and what they want to do in the makerspace. This sharing of ideas would not have been possible if the mentors had not given the youth autonomy during the YPAR project, thereby creating a space in which the voices, ideas, and perspectives of the youth regarding makerspaces could be heard and shared.   The findings of this study also imply that the meaning of making or makerspaces for youth must be examined and defined in order to design youth-friendly makerspaces. As demonstrated in Chapter Five, the youth in the study defined makerspaces as having multi-layered meanings; these spaces were tied to who the youth are, who they want to be, and what they want to do in these spaces. For instance, the youth hoped to make/invent something Òto save the world,Ó and they also hoped to make something Òfor their communityÓ in the makerspaces. Moreover, the youth did not define makerspaces as simply workspaces wherein they should engage solely in engineering/making. The youth also viewed makerspaces as places to Òhave fun,Ó Òlearn,Ó and Òthink.Ó Thus, they hoped for makerspaces that could act as places to support them during their participation in a variety of activities. In order to design makerspaces that promote youth-sustained   160 participation, designers must interpret and consider what the youth define as making or makerspaces.  Implications for Research on Makerspaces   This study introduces useful new theoretical and methodological tools for conducting research on makerspaces. As introduced in Chapter Three and Chapter Four, the theories of expansive learning (Engestrım & Sannino, 2010) and mobilities of learning (Leander, Phillips, & Taylor, 2010) provided useful theoretical lenses from which to understand the learning and development of youth who participate in makerspaces. Previous studies on makerspaces have mainly explored what and how youth learn and develop in makerspaces based on the theories of constructivism (Piaget), constructionism (Papert), or communities of practice (Lave & Wenger). Although these theories have offered useful theoretical frameworks for understanding the process of learning and development within makerspaces, they are limited in their ability to explain the process of complex multi-directional learning and development. In particular, these theories do not provide frameworks that recognize the funds of knowledge and cultural practices that the youth bring to makerspaces, nor do they consider these factors to be critical resources during engineering/making projects. The findings of this study suggest that two theoretical tools, expansive learning and mobilities of learning, provide powerful lenses from which to more fully understand the learning and development of youth in makerspaces.   In addition to the theoretical frameworks it makes use of, this study also introduces new methodological tools: critical ethnography and youth participatory action   161 research. These tools have not previously been commonly used in research on makerspaces. As shown in Chapter Three and Chapter Four, the use of critical ethnography allowed the researcher (me) and the participants (the youth) to collaborate in order to uncover and problematize the assumptions of culture or the designs of makerspaces influencing youth engagement, learning, and identity formation. This methodology allowed me to advocate for the voice of the youth and embrace their respective histories, cultures, and epistemologies during the research process. Thus, I was able to conduct the research ÒwithÓ the participants rather than ÒonÓ or ÒforÓ them (Calabrese Barton, 2001). As shown in Chapter Five, the use of youth participatory action research allowed the youth to position themselves as researchers in order to investigate local makerspaces and propose a new plan for a youth-centered and community-based makerspace. The youth made this proposal to the BGCÕs Board of Directors by drawing upon their research findings. This participatory research methodology allowed me to advocate for the voices of the youth who have been marginalized from participation in makerspaces. This methodology also allowed me to collaborate with the youth to transform the power dynamic of the current maker movement and makerspaces.           162 REFERENCES  163 REFERENCES  Anderson, G. L. (1989). Critical ethnography in education: Origins, current status, and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 249-270. Bautista, M. A., Bertrand, M., Morrell, E., Scorza, D., & Matthews, C. (2013). Participatory action research and city youth: Methodological insights from the Council of Youth Research. Teachers College Record, 115(10), 1-23. Bencze, L., & Carter, L. (2011). Globalizing students acting for the common good. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 648-669. 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.  Birmingham, D. & Calabrese Barton, A. (2014). Putting on a green carnival: Youth taking educated action on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 286-314. Brahms, L. (2014). Making as a learning process: Identifying and supporting family learning in informal settings. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh) Retrieved from http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu Brahms, L., & Crowley, K. (2014). Textual analysis of Make Magazine: Core practices of an emerging learning community. In American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Philadelphia. Brisman, A. (2013). Not a Bedtime Story: Climate Change, Neoliberalism and the Future of the Arctic. Mich. St. Int'l L. Rev., 22, 241. Calabrese Barton, A. (2001). Science education in urban settings: Seeking new ways of praxis through critical ethnography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 899-917. Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (in press). Empowering underrepresented middle school youth in engineering knowledge and productive identity work. Journal of Learning Science.   Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 50-73. Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Greenberg, D. (in press). The Makerspace Movement: Sites of Possibilities for Equitable Opportunities to Engage Underrepresented Youth in STEM. Teachers College Record.     164 Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Rivet, A. (2008). Creating hybrid spaces for engaging school science among urban middle school girls. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 68-103. Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (2008). Youth participatory action research. Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion, 1-12. Carlone, H. B. (2012). Methodological considerations for studying identities in school science. In Identity construction and science education research (pp. 9-25). Sense Publishers.  Carter, L. (2005). Globalisation and science education: Rethinking science education reforms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 561-580. Dougherty, D. (2015). Dale Dougherty, father of the maker movement talks about breaking rules, erasers & building a learning culture. Available at: https://www.edsurge.com/news/2015-05-27-dale-dougherty-father-of-the-maker-movement-talks-about-breaking-rules-erasers-building-a-learning-culture Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools (Vol. 285). Peter Lang. Engestrım, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of education and work, 14(1), 133-156. Engestrım, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1-24.  Fine, M. (2008). An epilogue, of sorts. Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion, 213-234. Fendler, R. (2013). Becoming-learner coordinates for mapping the space and subject of nomadic pedagogy. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(10), 786-793. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 1970. New York: Continuum. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (Vol. 5019). Basic Books. Gershenfeld, A. (2007). Fab: The coming revolution on your desktopÑfrom personal computers to personal fabrication. New York: Basic Books. Ginwright, S. (2008). Collective radical imagination. Revolutionizing Education: Youth Participatory Action Research in Motion, 13.   165 Gonsalves, A., Rahm, J., & Carvalho, A. (2013). ÒWe could think of things that could be scienceÓ: GirlsÕ re-figuring of science in an out-of-school-time club. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(9), 1068-1097. Gonz⁄lez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2013). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Guti”rrez, K. D. (2012). Re-mediating current activity for the future. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(1), 17-21. Guti”rrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148-164. Guti”rrez, K. D., Baquedano-LŠpez, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286-303. Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495-504. Hatch, M. (2013). The maker movement manifesto: Rules for innovation in the new world of crafters, hackers, and tinkerers. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. Holland, D. (2001). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Harvard University Press. Holland, D., & Lave, J. (2001). History in person: Enduring struggles, contentious practice, intimate identities. School of American Research Press: J. Currey. Holland, D., & Lave, J. (2009). Social practice theory and the historical production of persons. Action: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 2(1), 1-15.  Hollander, R. D., & Kahl, N. (2010). Engineering, social justice, and sustainable community development. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Kafai, Y., Fields, D., & Searle, K. (2014). Electronic textiles as disruptive designs: Supporting and challenging maker activities in schools. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 532-556. Lakes, R. D., & Carter, P. A. (2011). Neoliberalism and education: An introduction. Educational Studies, 47(2), 107-110. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leander, K. M., Phillips, N. C., & Taylor, K. H. (2010). The changing social spaces of learning: Mapping new mobilities. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 329-394.   166 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Litts, B. (2015). Making learning: Makerspaces as learning environments. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison) Retrieved from http://www.informalscience.org/sites/default/files/Litts_2015_Dissertation_Published.pdf Makezine (2015). Make: We are all makers. Available at:  http://makezine.com Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press. Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70. Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). ÒMaestro, what is ÔqualityÕ?Ó: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469-498. Morrell, E. (2006). Youth-initiated research as a tool for advocacy and change in urban schools. Beyond resistance, 111-128. Nazar, C. R., Calabrese Barton, A., Greenberg, D., Shin, M., & Tan, E. (2015). Hybrid practices and developing expertise in engineering among middle school students. In American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Paris, D., & Winn, M. T. (2013). Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22-27. Rodr™guez, L. F., & Brown, T. M. (2009). From voice to agency: Guiding principles for participatory action research with youth. New directions for youth development, 2009(123), 19-34. Sato, T. C. (2013). Examining how youth of color engage youth participatory action research to interrogate racism in their science experiences (Doctoral dissertation, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY).   167 Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505-531. Shin, M., Calabrese Barton, A.,  & Johnson, L. (in press). ÒI am an innovatorÓ QuahnÕs counter-narrative of becoming in STEM. In Sherry Marx (Ed.), Qualitative research in STEM: Studies of Equity, Access, and Innovation. Routledge. Smith, A. (2015). US Smartphone Use in 2015. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/ Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Tan, E., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2012). Empowering science and mathematics education in urban schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. TASCHA [Technology and Social Change Group, University of Washington]. (2012). Libraries & makerspaces: A revolution? Available at: http://tascha.uw.edu/2014/06/libraries-makerspaces-a-revolution/. Accessed December 14, 2014. Tobin, K. (2011). Global reproduction and transformation of science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(1), 127-142. Ttueba, E. H. T. (1999). Critical ethnography and a Vygotskian pedagogy of hope: The empowerment of Mexican immigrant children. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(6), 591-614. Upadhyay, B. R. (2006). Using studentsÕ lived experiences in an urban science classroom: An elementary school teacherÕs thinking. Science Education, 90(1), 94-110. Urrieta Jr, L. (2007). Figured worlds and education: An introduction to the special issue. The Urban Review, 39(2), 107-116. U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). State and county quick facts. Spauldings, MD: U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Education (2015). Science, Technology, Engineering and Math: Education for Global Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/stem Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (2014). Making and tinkering: A review of the literature. National Research Council Committee on Out of School Time STEM. Washington, DC: National Research Council, 1-55.   168 Vossoughi, S., Escud”, M., Kong, F., & Hooper, P. (2013). Tinkering, learning & equity in the after-school setting. In Annual FabLearn Conference. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University. Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense!making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529-552. Watson, V. W., & Marciano, J. E. (2015). Examining a social-participatory youth co!researcher methodology: A cross-case analysis extending possibilities of literacy and research. Literacy, 49(1), 37-44. White, R. (ed) (2010) Global Environmental Harm: Criminological Perspectives. Devon: Willan Publishing. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.