When the Experimental Lab is Itself the Experiment: Making Someone Else’s Design Work

Abstract

The redesign of learning spaces has been a growing trend in education, especially higher education. The redesign of such spaces takes time and involves a variety of stakeholders, sometimes resulting in ill-defined designs. This can be exacerbated when individuals leading such efforts depart and there is not a consensus on the design, sometimes leading to vendors having a disproportionate say in final implementations. Understanding these differences and finding a way forward can fall on new stakeholders who are tasked with supporting such spaces after most of the foundational decisions have been made and/or carried out. This case explores one faculty member and designer’s experiences with helping to both design for and define such an ill-defined space. Included in this case are the story of the design of the space pieced together from before the author started his employment and the story since he became a stakeholder, stumbling blocks encountered after the space was built, strategies employed in the interim, discussing a path forward, and finally sharing realizations made during the process which will help his future efforts with designing such multi-stakeholder spaces in the future.

Welcoming Newcomers to Makerspaces

“…This mentality was familiar to us; we initially experienced similar problems in our library space-ordering circulation materials and equipment without considering use (Kvenild et al, 2017). Stryker (2021) reported similar concerns in another makerspace setting. In these scenarios, it appeared that designers spent greater resources planning the space than considering implementations of the space (Smith & Ragan, 2005).…”

“…Use considerations often align with individual attitudes regarding the tools and space in question (Smith & Ragan, 2005). Those unfamiliar with 3D printers, cutting machines, and other tools may express interest when the tools are demonstrated but question how they are relevant to their interests and skills or believe they are unqualified or lack needed permissions to use them (Stryker, 2021). When developing instruction to impact attitudes, Smith and Ragan (2005) considered three components: cognitive, behavioral, and affective.…”

“…However, while the activities provided in this article give suggestions for how learners can interact with makerspaces and tools, they do not provide guidance for how to attract users to the space. Makerspaces may sit dormant because learners do not realize they can and should enter them (Stryker, 2021). Once entrance occurs, these activities may encourage use.…”

Rethinking the One Button Studio: An Alternative Solution

“…One exploration will be to see if the kiosk can be used in conjunction with either an early prototype of Author 1's DIY lightboard (McCorkle & Whitener, 2020) or a new DIY lightboard version to promote the use of lightboards in future video production by faculty. Another exploration will be to see if the kiosk can be used in conjunction with Author 2's DIY wireless interaction kiosk (Strycker, 2021). The main purpose of Author 2's interaction kiosk is to demystify the use of certain technologies and make them accessible when the lab housing them is locked or otherwise not accessible.…”