Abstract
Agency is a core pedagogical goal of the maker education movement. However, there are still many unknowns about how agency is identified in maker settings. To document maker educator professional visions of agency, we conducted video-cued interviews with eleven U.S-based maker educators using video clips of families making in a drop-in cardboard-focused museum makerspace. We found that heterogenous professional visions of agency are in use within the maker education field, falling across for distinct themes: agency as open-endedness, agency as progressive development, agency as pursuing-own-ideas, and agency as authority. Depending on which of these lenses was foregrounded during video-cued reflections, maker educators interpreted the same video-recorded moments as evidence for and against maker agency. Further, these competing visions held different underlying assumptions about power in makerspace interactions. This documentation of heterogeneity indicates the complexity of agency as a maker pedagogical goal, makes a case that researchers should adopt multiple perspectives when conducting video-based microgenetic analyses, and raises questions about how to grapple with and mitigate inequitable power dynamics in makerspaces.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data reported in this manuscript are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Adair, J. K., & Kurban, F. (2019). Video-cued ethnographic data collection as a tool toward participant voice. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 50(3), 313–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/aeq.12305
Ahearn, L. M. (2004). Literacy, power, and agency: Love letters and development in Nepal. Language and Education, 18(4), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780408666883
Bang, M., & Marin, A. (2015). Nature-culture constructs in science learning: Human/non-human agency and intentionality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21204
Bang, M., & Vossoughi, S. (2016). Participatory design research and educational justice: Studying learning and relations within social change making. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1181879
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831.
Barajas-López, F., & Bang, M. (2018). Indigenous making and sharing: Claywork in an Indigenous STEAM program. Equity & Excellence in Education, 51(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2018.1437847
Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Duke University Press.
Bequette, M., Geake, L., Goeke, M., Lukowski, S., Callahan Schreiber, R., & Schmit, B. (2023). Cardboard collaborative: A guide to creating more inclusive museum makerspaces. Science Museum of Minnesota.
Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of Making in science education. Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 75–103.
Blikstein, P., & Worsley, M. (2016). Children Are Not Hackers Building a culture of powerful ideas, deep learning, and equity in the maker movement. In E. R. Halverson & Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), K Peppler (1st ed., pp. 64–79). NY: Makeology Routledge.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Briseño-Garzón, A., Anderson, D., & Anderson, A. (2007). Entry and emergent agendas of adults visiting an aquarium in family groups. Visitor Studies, 10(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645570701263461
Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press.
Buchholz, B., Shively, K., Peppler, K., & Wohlwend, K. (2014). Hands on, hands off: Gendered access in crafting and electronics practices. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(4), 278–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.939762
Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2018). A longitudinal study of equity-oriented STEM-rich making among youth from historically marginalized communities. American Educational Research Journal, 55(4), 761–800. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218758668
Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2019). Designing for rightful presence in STEM: The role of making present practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4–5), 616–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1591411
Carlone, H. B., Johnson, A., & Scott, C. M. (2015). Agency amidst formidable structures: How girls perform gender in science class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 474–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21224
Clapp, E. P., Ross, J., Ryan, J. O., & Tishman, S. (2017). Maker-centered learning: Empowering young people to shape their worlds (1st ed.). Wiley.
DeLiema, D., Hufnagle, A., Rao, V. N. V., Baker, J., Valerie, J., & Kim, J. (2023). Methodological innovations at the intersection of video-based educational research traditions: Reflections on relevance, data selection, and phenomena of interest. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 46(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2021.2011196
Dougherty, D. (2013). The maker mindset. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design. Make. Play. Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 7–16). Routledge.
Elliott, C. H. (2020). “Run it through me:” Positioning, power, and learning on a high school robotics team. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(4–5), 598–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2020.1770763
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2021). From mediated actions to heterogenous coalitions: Four generations of activity-theoretical studies of work and learning. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 28(1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2020.1806328
Engle, R. A., Langer-Osuna, J. M., & McKinney de Royston, M. (2014). Toward a model of influence in persuasive discussions: Negotiating quality, authority, privilege, and access within a student-led argument. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.883979
Erickson, F. (2011). Uses of video in social research: A brief history. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(3), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2011.563615
Esmonde, I., & Booker, A. N. (Eds.). (2017). Power and privilege in the learning sciences: Critical and sociocultural theories of learning. Routledge.
Falk, J. H. (2009). Identity and the museum visitor experience. Left Coast Press.
Goeke, M. & DeLiema, D. (2022). Attenuation and Amplification of Agency through Goal Announcements in a Makerspace. International Collaboration toward Educational Innovation for All: 2022 International Society of the Learning Sciences Annual Meeting.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, New Series, 96(3), 606–633.
Greenberg, D., Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Archer, L. (2020). Redefining entrepreneurialism in the maker movement: A critical youth approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(4–5), 471–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2020.1749633
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2015). The possibilities and limits of the structure-agency dialectic in advancing science for all. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 574–583. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21229
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Jurow, A. S. (2016). Social design experiments: Toward equity by design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 565–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1204548
Hall, R. (2000). Video recording as theory. In D. Lesh & A. Kelley (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 647–664). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.
Holland, D. C., Lachicotte, W., Jr., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Harvard Univ.
Huma, B., & Joyce, J. B. (2022). ‘One size doesn’t fit all’: Lessons from interaction analysis on tailoring open science practices to qualitative research. British Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12568
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). (2017). Making + Learning in Museums and Libraries: A Practitioners’ Guide and Framework.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Benjamins.
Jocius, R., Albert, J., Andrews, A., & Blanton, M. (2020). A study in contradictions: Exploring standards-based making in elementary classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 113(5), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2020.1838409
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2
Kane, J. M. (2015). The structure-agency dialectic in contested science spaces: “Do earthworms eat apples?” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21206
Keifert, D. T. (2021). Family culture as context for learning through inquiry. Cognition and Instruction, 39(3), 242–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2021.1913162
Keune, A. (2022). Material syntonicity: Examining computational performance and its materiality through weaving and sewing crafts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 31(4–5), 477–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2022.2100704
Kobiela, M., & Lehrer, R. (2015). The codevelopment of mathematical concepts and the practice of defining. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(4), 423–454. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.46.4.0423
Konopasky, A. W., & Sheridan, K. M. (2016). Towards a diagnostic toolkit for the language of agency. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 23(2), 108–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2015.1128952
Langer-Osuna, J. M. (2016). The social construction of authority among peers and its implications for collaborative mathematics problem solving. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 18(2), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2016.1148529
Lee, U.-S., DeLiema, D., & Gomez, K. (2022). Equity conjectures: A methodological tool for centering social change in learning and design. Cognition & Instruction, 40(1), 77–99.
Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Prentice Hall.
Letourneau, S. M. (2022). Designing for agency in informal STEM learning environments. In H. Ba, K. Mcmillan Culp, & M. Honey (Eds.), Design make play for equity, inclusion, and agency (pp. 13–27). Routledge.
Lindwall, O., & Lymer, G. (2008). The dark matter of lab work: Illuminating the negotiation of disciplined perception in mechanics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(2), 180–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400801986082
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Prentice Hall.
Maker education initiative. (2015). Youth Makerspace Playbook. https://resources.makered.org/resource/youth-makerspace-playbook
Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1099
Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.
Matusov, E., Von Duyke, K., & Kayumova, S. (2016). Map** concepts of agency in educational contexts. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(3), 420–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9336-0
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
Paulus, P. B., Coursey, L. E., & Kenworthy, J. B. (2019). Divergent and convergent collaborative creativity. In I. Lebuda & V. P. Glăveanu (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of social creativity research (pp. 245–262). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95498-1_16
Philip, T. M., & Azevedo, F. S. (2017). Everyday science learning and equity: Map** the contested terrain. Science Education, 101(4), 526–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21286
Philip, T. M., Bang, M., & Jackson, K. (2018). Articulating the “How”, the “For What”, the “For Whom”, and the “With Whom” in concert: A call to broaden the benchmarks of our scholarship. Cognition and Instruction, 36(2), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2018.1413530
Philip, T. M., & Gupta, A. (2020). Emerging perspectives on the Co-construction of power and learning in the learning sciences, mathematics education, and science education. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 195–217. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20903309
Ryoo, J. J., & Kekelis, L. (2018). Reframing “Failure” in making: The value of play, social relationships, and ownership. Journal of Youth Development, 13(4), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.5195/JYD.2018.624
Schlosser, M. (2019). Agency. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/agency/
Shannon, C. J. (2021). Collaborative problem solving: A guide to improving your workplace. Routledge.
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. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u
Sheridan, K. M., Zhang, X., & Konopasky, A. W. (2022). Strategic shifts: How studio teachers use direction and support to build learner agency in the figured world of visual art. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 31(1), 14–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.1999817
Sheridan, M. P., Lemieux, A., Do Nascimento, A., & Arnseth, H. C. (2020). Intra-active entanglements: What posthuman and new materialist frameworks can offer the learning sciences. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1277–1291. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12928.
Sherin, M. G. (2007). The development of teachers’ professional vision in video clubs. In R. Goldman, R. D. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 383–395). Erlbaum.
Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328155
Sidnell, J. (2011). The epistemics of make-believe. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 131–156). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.007
Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined Perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In M. Lampert & M. L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 107–150). Cambridge University Press.
Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J. (2016). Proposals for activity collaboration. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(2), 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1164409
Strager, H., & Astrup, J. (2014). A place for kids? The public image of natural history museum. Curator, 57(3), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12071
Tekkumru-Kisa, M., & Stein, M. K. (2017). A framework for planning and facilitating video-based professional development. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0086-z
The Politics of Learning Writing Collective. (2017). The learning sciences in a New Era of U.S. Nationalism. Cognition and Instruction, 35(2), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2017.1282486
Tomko, M. E., Nagel, R. L., Newstetter, W., Smith, S. F., Talley, K. G., & Linsey, J. (2021). Making a makerspace: Identified practices in the formation of a University makerspace. Engineering Studies, 13(1), 8–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2021.1916941
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “Big-Tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
van Eans, E. A., Tekkumru-Kisa, M., & Seago, N. (2020). Leveraging the power of video for teacher learning: A design framework for mathematics teacher educators. In S. Llinares & O. Chapman (Eds.), International Handbook of Mathematics Teacher Education: Tools and Processes in Mathematics Teacher Education (2nd ed., Vol. 2). BRILL.
Vaughn, M. (2020). Where to from here: Fostering agency across landscapes. Theory into Practice, 59(2), 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1702391
Vedder-Weiss, D., Ehrenfeld, N., Ram-Menashe, M., & Pollak, I. (2018). Productive framing of pedagogical failure: How teacher framings can facilitate or impede learning from problems of practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 30, 31–41.
Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (2014). Making and Tinkering: A Review of the Literature (p. 57) [Technical Report]. Committee on Successful Out-of-School STEM Learning.
Vossoughi, S., Davis, N. R., Jackson, A., Echevarria, R., Muñoz, A., & Escudé, M. (2021). Beyond the binary of adult versus child centered learning: Pedagogies of joint activity in the context of making. Cognition and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2020.1860052
Vossoughi, S., & Escudé, M. (2016). What does the camera communicate? An inquiry into the politics and possibilities of video research on learning. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 47(1), 42–58.
Vossoughi, S., Hooper, P. K., & Escudé, M. (2016). Making through the lens of culture and power: Toward transformative visions for educational equity. Harvard Educational Review, 86(2), 206–232. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.86.2.206
Wohlwend, K. E., Peppler, K. A., Keune, A., & Thompson, N. (2017). Making sense and nonsense: Comparing mediated discourse and agential realist approaches to materiality in a preschool makerspace. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17(3), 444–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798417712066
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Goeke, M., DeLiema, D. Uncovering maker educators’ heterogenous professional visions of agency within goal setting interactions. Education Tech Research Dev 72, 359–384 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10317-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10317-x