MOTIVATION IN MAKING: SELF-EFFICACY,
MOTIVATION, ENGAGEMENT, FLOW, AND TENACITY IN
GUERRILLA MAKER SPACES
Saskia Leggett
T545: Motivation and Learning: Technologies that Invite and Immerse
Professor Chris Dede
Spring 2014
Introduction
Last Fall, as a final project in Karen Brennan’s T550 course Designing for
Learning by Creating, I (in conjunction with a project partner, Christan Balch) co-
created an endeavor aimed at exploring the idea of bringing the maker movement to
unexpected places to target unexpected learners. Guerrilla Maker Space (GMS), a
"pop up" meets maker movement experience, examines what happens when
everyday spaces are disrupted to offer unexpectedly enriching, creative, technologyinfused experiences. Armed with our maker weapons of choice — a variety of
conductive items, MaKey MaKeys (circuit boards that permit manipulating
computer interfaces with external conductive items), and laptops pre-loaded
Scratch (an intuitive programming interface) — we set up and openly invite
participants in various locations to engage with a makeshift maker space.
GMS addresses the specific problem of students learning as consumers – and
not producers – of technology. The GMS experience utilizes creative computing as a
maker experience, and may be divided into two main components – physical making
(aided by MaKey MaKey) and digital making (aided by programming with Scratch).
The experience helps train learners to determine goals, examine problems, pick
them apart (quite literally), experiment, and tinker to find solutions and create
personally meaningful products. In this way, in the words of Stanford professor
Paulo Blikstein, GMS utilizes technology “as an emancipatory tool that puts the most
powerful construction materials in the hands of the children” (5). Though aimed to
target student learners, GMS is open to all.
1
Guerrilla Maker Space is an experience rich in the 21st century skills of
critical thinking, collaboration, creativity, and problem solving. According to the
National Research Council’s 2012 Report to Congress, such “deeper learning” skills
are essential to navigating a rapidly changing world; as such, business, political, and
educational leaders are increasingly advocating for schools to incorporate 21st
century skills into their curricula (p. 15). While the experience does not directly
impact traditional subject matter, it has the capacity to aid students in applying the
skills gained in their maker experience to broader disciplines. As MIT Media Lab
Lifelong Kindergarten head Mitch Resnick writes, “In a society characterized by
uncertainty and rapid change, the ability to think creatively is becoming the key to
success and satisfaction, both professionally and personally” (2007, p. 1).
Creative computing, in particular, is gaining recognition as both a method to
teach 21st century skills and to enrich student capacity. As Karen Brennan writes in
“Learning through Computing and Connecting,” “Given computing’s importance in
nearly every aspect of life, it seems self-evident that computing should be included
in the learning experiences of all young people” (52). Brennan does not intend for all
children to learn how to become programmers or developers; rather, children
should use the principles of computing and programming as tools that they may
utilize in any future professional or academic setting (especially as industries
become increasingly digital).
GMS spaces offer chances to not only expose participants to creative
computing skills through Scratch, but also the chance to apply these skills to
physical products. Using Scratch and MaKey MaKey, our hope is to bridge the
2
programmer/creative technologist divide by creating enriching experiences in
which participants engage in short creative, technology-fused experiences. We hope
to show all users that they have the capacity to make, create, and, ultimately, invent
the futures they hope to inhabit. GMS uses the learning objectives of sparking
curiosity and enabling enrichment as entry points to achieving these greater goals.
This paper aims to analyze Guerrilla Maker Space in terms of self-efficacy,
motivation, engagement, flow, and tenacity in order to improve learning potential in
future iterations of GMS. To inform my analysis of Guerrilla Maker Space as an
educational experience, I will first break down the GMS experience into three
components – the experience of learning with Scratch, the experience of learning
with MaKey MaKey, and the experience of combining technologies in a pop-up
maker space environment – analyzing the SMEFT capacities of each on an individual
level. Then, I use my initial analyses as context to describe my personal experiences
with GMS. Lastly, I will explain the SMEFT and learning strengths and limitations of
the combined three experiences in Guerrilla Maker Space and make informed
suggestions for how to improve future iterations. It is my hope that the analysis
conducted in this paper will ultimately inform the second iteration of GMS, including
an accompanying curriculum for educators to recreate the experience for students
on their own turf.
3
Theoretical and Empirical Framework
Understanding SMEFT
In order to proceed with an analysis of Scratch, MaKey MaKey, maker spaces,
and the distinct combination of all three in Guerrilla Maker Space, I will first outline
how the theoretical frameworks of self-efficacy, motivation, engagement, flow, and
tenacity might come into play in GMS. Self-efficacy, as defined by psychologist Albert
Bandura, regards an individual’s belief in his or her capabilities to organize, learn,
and execute a task or behavior (1997, p. 3). According to self-efficacy research by
Dale H. Schunk and Frank Pajares, people are more likely to engage in tasks when
they value the expected outcome, especially when expected outcomes are linked to
feelings of success (2005, p. 90). Lastly, self-efficacy is linked with control: Schunk
and Pajares write, "People who believe they can control what they learn and
perform are more apt to initiate and sustain behaviors directed toward those ends
than are those with a low sense of control over their capabilities” (2005, p. 91). The
issues of personal ability belief, success value, and control are especially important
in the early stages of engaging with GMS spaces as users evaluate their personal
capacities.
As a highly personalized, autonomist experience, Guerrilla Maker Space
involves a deep level of intrinsic motivation in most participants who opt to engage
with the experience. Intrinsic motivation, as Mark R. Lepper and Jennifer
Henderlong write in their 2000 work, may be broken down into what they refer to
as the “4C’s” – “challenge, curiosity, control, and context” (p. 258). The authors note
that intrinsic motivation may additionally be enhanced by choice, autonomy, self-
4
determination, and by capitalizing on prior interests (Lepper & Henderlong, 2000, p.
288-291). Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci’s Self-Determination Theory (SDT)
provides a comprehensive framework to address and evaluate intrinsic motivation
as well (2000, p. 68-69). Ryan and Deci write, “Perhaps no single phenomenon
reflects the positive potential of human nature as much as intrinsic motivation, the
inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one's
capacities, to explore, and to learn” (2000, p. 70).
Guerrilla Maker Space participants are less likely to be extrinsically
motivated; there are no built-in rewards, badges, or stamps of approval at our
maker spaces. Extrinsic motivation, as defined by Ryan and Deci, involves “the
performance of an activity in order to attain some separable outcome” (as opposed
to their definition of intrinsic motivation, “doing an activity for the inherent
satisfaction of the activity itself”) (2000, p. 71). Our participants, however, may link
their creations in GMS to external motivators, such as personal/social motivators,
that lie out of our scope of control.
Whereas motivation involves rationale, engagement involves degrees of
action: motivation encompasses a set of reasons that lead one to regularly seek out a
behavior; engagement refers to the degree to which an individual feels immersed in
an activity as an enjoyable, useful experience. In experiences where technology is
incorporated, the definition of engagement may be extended to include how and
why people develop relationships with technology and incorporate it into their lives
(Attfield, Kazai, Lalmas, & Piwowarski, 2011, p. 2). In each Guerrilla Maker Space,
levels of engagement varied greatly. To examine variations in engagement, I will
5
examine user engagement theory defined by the emotional, cognitive, and
behavioral dimensions of focused attention, the experience of positive emotions,
high aesthetic appeal, a desire to return to the experience, novelty, trust, and user
motivation (Attfield, Kazai, Lalmas, & Piwowarski, 2011, p. 2-3).
Flow, as defined by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, is the “psychology of optimal
experience” – that is, the mental state in which a fully-immersed person feels
involved, focused, and successful in an activity (1991). Csikszentmihalyi writes that
the varied flow-inducing activities he encountered in his studies “provided a sense
of discovery, a creative feeling of transporting the person in to a new reality. It
pushed the person to higher levels of performance, and led to previously
undreamed of states of consciousness. In short, it transformed the self by making it
more complex” (1991, p. 74). Though GMS participants are limited in their
experience deep flow by the short amount of time spent at the pop-up space, they
may carry the happiness found through their autonomy-rich experience into other
life venues in which flow may be experienced at its fullest level.
Tenacity, perhaps, is the most difficult SMEFT element to examine in
Guerrilla Maker Spaces and their involved technologies. GMS participants rarely
stay beyond a half hour (maximum) in the pop-up space before moving on to their
next scheduled activity. Tenacity, as defined by the U.S. Department of Education’s
report “Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in
the 21st Century” includes the “mindsets and skills that allow students to set short-
term concerns aside to withstand challenges and setbacks en route to longer-term
or higher-order goals” and “a tendency to keep going in the face of failure, adversity,
6
obstacles, and setbacks” (2013, p. 12). When participants do demonstrate
endurance in GMS experiences, measuring their tenacity becomes difficult without
pre-established goals. Yet the latter definition is more obvious and measurable in
GMS: the technology utilized is not always straight forward, and working through
obstacles is a frequent necessity.
Scratch
Developed by at the Lifelong Kindergarten (LLK) group at the MIT Media Lab,
Scratch claims to “make it easy for everyone, of all ages, backgrounds, and interests,
to program their own interactive stories, games, animations, and simulations, and
share their creations with one another,” as Mitch Resnick and the LLK research team
note in a 2009 article detailing the design choices behind the program (Resnick et
al., p. 60). Scratch aims to include all levels of learners in an introduction to
programming; thus, the design choices made in creating the Scratch interface are
deliberate, precise, and backed by copious research. Above all else, Scratch is
designed to be an approachable interface capable of sustaining the attention of
users with no previous introduction to programming. Informed by the work of
constructionist theorist Seymour Papert, who argued for the case of building
accessible programming languages with “low floors” and “high ceilings” (that is,
languages should be easy to get started with but include the potential to harbor
more advanced applications). The low floor approach of Scratch, according to LLK’s
conducted research, provides an ideal environment to encourage learning capacity
in all users (Resnick, et al., 2009, p. 63). Scratch developers also claim its methodical
design directly connects to its goals: “The Scratch programming environment and
7
language work together to create a system that is exceptionally quick to learn—
users can be programming within fifteen minutes—yet with enough depth and
variety to keep users engaged for years” (Maloney, et al., 2010, p. 14).
Resnick, et al. note that Scratch was additionally designed for “wide walls” –
the ability to engage a wide variety of learners and interests through supporting an
array of projects (2009, p. 63). Built upon the notion that children learn best when
producing personally meaningful products, Resnick et al. write that Scratch not only
supports a diversity of project types (stories, games, simulations, animations), but
also a range of ways to personalize projects through options to record sounds,
import photos, draw graphics, and create their own “sprites” (interactive
characters) (2009, p. 64). Choices, as Lepper and Henderlong note, enhance
children’s feelings of self-determination (2000, p. 288).
Scratch, the developers claim, was deliberately designed to ease novice
programmers into computational thinking. User research conducted by the
development team led to the design choices that emphasize ease of interaction and
understanding, such as a single-window interface, minimal command set, visual
language blocks, no error messages, and simple syntax (Maloney, et al., 2010). Due
to its ease of use, Scratch developers note that the program promotes autonomy in
creation, contributing both to its ability to promote self-efficacy and tap into
intrinsic motivation (Lepper & Henderlong, 2000, p. 289; Schunk & Pajares, 2005, p.
91). Users may also be extrinsically motivated through built-in features that allow
them to follow one another, gather favorite projects, see a tally of individual project
views, and trace remixes, for achieving social status within online communities is a
8
strong motivator for participation (Kollock, 1999). The Scratch homepage also
features individual projects that are particularly well-designed.
Scratch’s interface - playful, bright, and easy to navigate – is designed to be
inherently engaging through its visual appeal and high level of interactivity. Inspired
by the simplicity of creation encouraged with Legos, the program’s main elements –
code commands shaped like blocks – are “shaped to fit together in ways that make
syntactic sense” and immediately execute visible actions after a single click (Resnick
et al., 2009, p. 63). Additionally, as a creative computational language, Scratch’s
connections to relevant applications are apparent to school-aged users. Such
connections to mathematical and computational concepts encourage engagement,
not only in Scratch projects, but in learning more about the concepts themselves as
well (Resnick, et al. 2009). Like the creative interface, Scratch developers designed
the online community based on user research, finding that creative collaboration is
best fostered through interfaces that allow users to create their own rules and
structures, which, in turn, fosters a sense of duty to the community (Aragon, Poon,
Monroy-Hernández, & Aragon, 2009).
Programming, like any problem-solving exercise, involves piecing together
elements like a puzzle, constantly toying with different parts to see how they might
fit together. In the article “Designing for Tinkerability,” Mitch Resnick and Eric
Rosenbaum write “As young people create Scratch projects, they typically engage in
an extended tinkering process – creating programming scripts and costumes for
each sprite, testing them out to see if they behave as expected, then revising and
adapting them, over and over again” (2013, p. 169). Users may interact with the
9
interface with increasing levels of difficulty, moving from familiar, low-difficulty
blocks to more challenging blocks that evoke higher level mathematical concepts
(1987).
As Resnick et al. note, future iterations of Scratch will continues to focus on
“lowering the floor and widening the walls, not raising the ceiling” to engage and
motivate all learners at all levels of programming familiarity (2009, p. 66). From
personal experience working in the Scratch community, I’m aware of a need to
develop frameworks to increase interest in interacting with the Scratch site.
Although Scratch is clearly designed to engage all levels of users, the initial draw to
Scratch remains weak. Additionally, though Scratch certainly provides an accessible
way for users to be introduced to programming concepts, very little is known about
how much engaging with Scratch informs a user’s capacity for computational
thinking in outside contexts (programming or otherwise).
Self-efficacy
Motivation
Engagement
Flow
Review of Scratch features in terms of SMEFT
- Designed for ease of use
- High capacity for autonomy and control
- Open-ended interface allows all users to engage any interest
through multimedia applications, producing an ideal environment
to incite intrinsic motivation.
- Participating in the online community, gathering followers, and
the capacity to trace others’ remixes of one’s projects promote
extrinsic motivation
- Playful user interface that optimizes bright colors, clear design,
and exciting language
- Elements are specifically designed to make sense
- Interface designed to be immediately interactive (one click =
immediate action)
- Open interface is designed to promote tinkering and
experimentation
- Multiple levels of difficulty promote an interface that lies along the
10
Tenacity
optimal flow path between anxiety and boredom
- The robust Scratch community encourages users to collaborate,
assist each other with specific issues, and teach difficult concepts
- Finding necessary assistance is simple if users get stuck
MaKey MaKey
Designed as a physical accompaniment to creative computation, MaKey
MaKey (“an invention kit for everyone,” according to its packaging) was designed in
a spirit similar to Scratch. In a conversation with MaKey MaKey co-creator Eric
Rosenbaum, I learned that MaKey MaKey is made to create a shift in attitude in
children who are not interested in science at school. MaKey MaKey serves as a path
to creative empowerment, designed with Seymour Papert’s low floors/high ceilings
model in mind. As a digital manipulative, MaKey MaKey claims to provide an
“opportunity for learners to develop fragments of knowledge that they can later
integrate into a more complete understanding” (Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013, p.
167). MaKey MaKey also exists within a canon of research that proves the capacity
of digital manipulatives to enhance engagement through tactile, manual exploration
(Hartman, Miller & Nelson, 1999).
As a device aimed to increase self-efficacy, MaKey MaKey hopes to help
students, in the words of Rosenbaum, “remake their world” (personal
communication, April 18, 2014). Open to a wide range of leaners, MaKey MaKey is
challenging enough to promote ideation in experts more familiar with the
technology as well (Rosenbaum & Silver, 2012). Like Scratch, the deliberate,
intelligible design of the device was informed through user testing: a simple circuit
board that utilizes nothing more than a USB cable and alligator clips. MaKey MaKey
11
has the capacity to turn anything conductive into a designated keyboard key; users
may interact with familiar objects (such as food, clay, aluminum foil, or their own
bodies) to engineer a new way to manipulate their computers. Exposure to such
digital manipulatives, developers claim, may enable children to learn advanced
concepts in science and math at an early age (Resnick, 1998).
Rosenbaum also spoke of the “magic” quality of MaKey MaKey: users of all
levels are at first intrigued by the sight of every day objects hooked up to wires, then
most often amazed by their capacity to use those objects to produce sounds,
manipulate on-screen objects, or draw images (personal communication, April 18,
2014). MaKey MaKey is designed to motivate by curiosity and exploration alone, as
users are drawn to the novelty and challenge the device presents. The MaKey MaKey
packaging invites users to “plug it in  hook it up  make stuff happen on your
computer,” both promoting its accessibility through simple language and inviting
users to use any prior interests or motivations (any kind of “stuff” they’re interested
in) to engage with the device. As Lepper and Henderlong note, tapping capitalizing
on prior interests provides a way for users to personalize their interactions,
resulting in an experience enriched by intrinsic motivators (2000). In spite of the
initial captivation, however, little research has been conducted about the capacity
for MaKey MaKey to motivate users to continue to engineer after interacting with
the device.
Rosenbaum and his partner, Jay Silver, designed the device itself is to be
optimized for engagement: MaKey MaKey employs bright colors, positive messages
(“Be stoked!” is written on the back), and is easy to understand and manipulate with
12
knowledge of simple circuitry. Like Scratch, MaKey MaKeys are designed for
“tinkerability” which is “characterized by a playful, experimental, iterative style of
engagement, in which makers are continually reassessing their goals, exploring new
paths, and imagining new possibilities” (Resnick & Rosembaum, 2013, p. 164).
Tinkerers, MaKey MaKey’s developers claim, easily achieve tenacity, for they
“understand how to improvise, adapt, and iterate, so they are never stuck on old
plans as new situations arise” (Resnick & Rosembaum, 2013, p. 166). Yet, as in the
case with Scratch, tenacity with MaKey MaKey is difficult to measure without stated
learning goals. As an open-ended device, MaKey MaKey may be used in a variety of
settings to produce a myriad of projects. Achieving grit and tenacity are by no
means out of the question, but the context in which the device is utilized in matters.
As a device on its own, however, MaKey MaKey has no built-in features to explicitly
promote endurance in creation.
Self-efficacy
Motivation
Engagement
Review of MaKey MaKey features in terms of SMEFT
- Designed with autonomy and control in mind; part of the mission
of MaKey MaKey is to change how users interact with their
computers.
- Users interact with objects they are already familiar with, which
act as gateways to feelings of ownership for new creations
- The “magic” quality of MaKey MaKey is key – because anything
conductive can be used with MaKey MaKey, opportunities to
explore, find novel uses for old things, and challenge ideas are high.
- MaKey MaKey’s design is playful, colorful, and imaginative
(messages like “be stoked” and subtle playful graphics, like pacman
drawings, are present the circuit board itself).
- The hardware is designed to be immediately interactive, selfexplanatory, flexible, and easy to use.
- MaKey MaKeys are highly personizable; users can even use their
own bodies to interact with the device.
- MaKey MaKey provides links to existing projects to spark curiosity
(which also links to self-efficacy, showing users that they too can
13
create these projects)
- In general, users are totally stoked to play with the device
Flow
Tenacity
- MaKey MaKeys provide opportunities for endless tinkering, but do
not provide enough of a challenge on their own (they are most
powerful when paired with a customizable interface like Scratch).
- Tenacity levels are easier to maintain when MaKey MaKey designs
are more challenging.
Maker Spaces
Little research exists on the effectiveness of maker spaces as learning spaces;
the maker space movement is still gaining traction as a worthwhile educational
experience. There are, however, a number of guides to aid maker space facilitators
and creators in physical and digital fabrication lab best practices. Maker spaces,
according to the Makerspace Playbook, are physical workspaces where individuals
are supported in gaining hands-on experiences with new technologies and
innovative processes to design and build new projects (2012, p. 4). Also termed
“hacker spaces” or “fab [fabrication] labs,” these spaces exist solely for the purposes
of tinkering, creation, and exploration, inspired by the principles of experiential
education, constructionism, and promoting digital fluency (Blikstein, 2013, p. 4).
Maker spaces are concerned with providing venues in which participants may
become empowered to understand the modern technologies that dictate daily lives
through building/programming physical and digital creations. Maker space
advocates claim that the empowering experiences of creating and tinkering in
maker labs will lead participants to develop the technological fluency and problem-
14
solving skills necessary to participate effectively in a modern society (Blikstein,
2013).
Though maker spaces may take on many forms, common threads link
together each experience. Maker spaces are most often concerned with promoting
some sort of open STE(A)M technology (like MaKey MaKey), are rich in hands-on
applications, and usually offer a variety of different tools and resources to address
variability of interest in users. Most maker spaces emphasize autonomy as an
essential aspect of promoting self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation alike. The
Makerspace Playbook specifically emphasizes self-directed learning as one of their
core principles, noting that people who engage in building their own projects are
more likely to be motivated to pursue similar engineering experiences (2012, p. 4).
The YALSA Making in the Library Toolkit adds to this point by emphasizing the
importance of bringing in a variety of items to engage a wide range of participants,
and to arrange the physical space with as much modular, re-arrangeable furniture
as possible (2014, p. 9).
In maker spaces, facilitators play an important role in engaging new makers
and guiding participants as they fashion their creations. Facilitators, notes the
Makerspace Playbook, should be careful to guide (rather than instruct) and should
opt for encouragement without empty praise (2012, p. 25). Consistent with Carol
Dweck’s theories of malleable intelligence, the Makerspace Playbook encourages
facilitators to compliment the way makers try and do different things, rather than
purely praising the results. Process-oriented feedback, in opposition to trait-
oriented feedback, notes Dweck, motivates students to uphold a belief that their
15
intelligence is malleable, resulting in greater effort and increased performance
(2002). Good facilitation in maker spaces is also perhaps the key to unlocking
tenacity: in the face of challenges, effort-oriented praise may help makers persevere.
Self-efficacy
Motivation
Engagement
Flow
Tenacity
Review of maker space features in terms of SMEFT
- Maker spaces, by design, empower makers to utilize different
technologies to create self-directed artifacts.
- Maker spaces are often voluntary; makers opt to participate out of
a desire to create
- Maker spaces often promote choice and autonomy to appeal to a
variety of participants
- The physical space is most often optimized for engagement
through modular furniture and neatly-arranged items
- Like MaKey MaKey and Scratch, tinkering in Maker Spaces opens
makers to the experience of flow
- Targeted facilitation techniques may aid endurance and tenacity in
users through effort
Personal Experience with Guerrilla Maker Space
As a Guerrilla Maker Space creator and facilitator, I’ve witnessed how the
combination of Scratch and MaKey MaKey may enable engaging experiences for all
learners. Both technologies are optimized for play, and when used in concert, they
have the capacity to motivate multiple learners. The main goals of Guerrilla Maker
Space are not as lofty as those of Scratch or MaKey MaKey, which hope to increase
their users’ views of themselves as programmers and/or engineers. With Guerrilla
Maker Space, we hope to spark curiosity and provide some level of educational
enrichment.
16
To date, my GMS partner in crime – Christan Balch – and I have set up and
facilitated six Guerrilla Maker Spaces that employ Scratch and MaKey MaKey in a
maker space environment. While our chosen materials and facilitation/engagement
methods remain constant, our locations have changed: we have produced Guerrilla
Maker Spaces in Gutman Library (on two occasions), Harvard’s outdoor science
plaza, the Queenshead pub, South Station, and at the Williams College Museum of
Art. In each space, Christan and I arrive with two laptops and a single box of
materials filled with two MaKey MaKeys, molding clay, graphite pencils,
construction paper, small metal office supplies, crayons, aluminum foil, and
bananas. Christan and I typically arrive at a space completely unannounced and
survey the most centrally located table. We have a small, colorful sign that reads
“Make with us!” that we set upright on our surface, then we spread out and organize
our materials. We set up one laptop hooked up to a pre-created Scratch Mario game
(complete with the Mario Brothers theme song), create a quick game controller
made of clay, and hook up the second MaKey MaKey to a laptop with a blank Scratch
page. We find that the familiarity of the game and its associated sounds aid us in
generating interest in our space. Next, one of us starts tinkering; the other politely
asks onlookers “would you like to make with us?” Then the fun begins.
Soliciting participants is usually fairly easy; people are drawn to the space by
the curious items displayed (the bananas do much of the curiosity legwork) and
intrigued by the colorful mess of wires and sounds. A typical GMS will involve 10-20
participants over the course of two hours. Our “makers” (as we call them) are range
from ages five and up, come from all types of occupational backgrounds, and stay for
17
anywhere between five and 45 minutes. As levels of engagement are more difficult
to analyze for makers who stay for a short amount of time, I will focus my analysis
on those who engaged with the space for 15 minutes or longer.
When people do approach the space, they most often opt to play with the
pre-set up MaKey MaKey Mario or piano game. After a quick talk about circuitry,
they then move on to trying out additional conductive items (including their own
bodies) with MaKey MaKey. Makers will draw pictures with conductive graphite,
create drum circles with their friends’ hands, attempt to compose songs with the
banana piano, or try out additional conductive items.
Engagement, for the most part, is quite shallow. Though MaKey MaKey and
Scratch are designed for users to tinker, experiment, and probe until they are, in the
words of Csikszentmihalyi, transported into “a new reality,” our makers rarely
experience such states (1991, p. 74). MaKey MaKey, in addition, is a much more
popular item than Scratch: though Scratch is designed to connect to the interests
and experiences of all users, and thus naturally suited to tap into the intrinsic
motivations of all participants, maker are much less likely to manipulate the Scratch
interface, even with facilitator guidance. When asked why a particularly intrigued
maker was not as interested in engaging with Scratch beyond the pre-loaded game,
he replied that he preferred to tinker with computer-based programs at home
where he might have more time to work through potential challenges.
Though guidance is kept at a minimum, we both try to stay as aware as
possible of user engagement, introducing participants to new possibilities if we see
their interests fading. Though we offer quick explanations of technologies and
18
suggest additional applications, we prefer our users to explore on their own (we do
explicitly tell them to explore and offer quick praise). We find ourselves drawing
participants in by asking if they have ever “played” with the two technologies; we
find that “make” is not yet a word that resonates with all potentially interested
parties. Makers often come in pairs; people are much more likely to engage with our
space when they are socially engaged as well.
The most common reactions to GMS are sheer wonder and playful glee;
makers are instantly drawn in to the magic of the technologies, intrigued by the
capacities for a small circuit board to transform every day items. In our most recent
maker space, we overheard a passerby state “I don’t understand what’s going on,
but I love it”; we quickly pulled her into our space, and she was immediately
overjoyed. We have yet to have a maker walk away unsatisfied with their
experience, whether they played with a pre-set up game or attempted to make their
own creation.
Ricarose Roque, a PhD student in the Lifelong Kindergarten group, creates
similar maker spaces in intergenerational contexts as part of her research. These
workshops, called Family Creative Learning, employ Scratch and MaKey MaKey as
well. Ricarose notes that people have a tendency to gravitate more towards MaKey
MaKey because physical materials feel more familiar. Digital manipulatives are
more often less well known, and a brief encounter with a pop-up space does not
always have the capacity to sway makers to dive deep into something unfamiliar.
She opted for the Scratch/MaKey MaKey combination in her workshops because of
the “multiple entry points” the combination of digital and physical manipulatives
19
offer, noting that choice is an important motivator. Creation in itself, she added, is
often enough of a motivator.
When designing her workshops, Ricarose creates an engaging environment
by designing specifically for “joy,” from including food to laughter-inducing ice
breakers to asking participants to express their interests by making items that are
distinctly theirs. Ricarose also notes that makers are more inclined to make projects
based on prior interests, which she capitalizes on as a facilitator when she notices
participants getting stuck. She noted, "That way, it becomes their project, not an
activity they’re supposed to do.” Ricarose added that her workshops are not
intended to develop deep interest in making; rather, she hopes to shift her
participants from the point of invitation to a point of ownership as their individual
interests in making emerge. “When introducing someone to our worship series, the
best we can do is spark interest,” which is still a powerful experience to have,
Ricarose noted (personal communication, April 7, 2014).
Overall assessment of SMEFT in Guerrilla Maker Spaces 1
Based on research and findings in the field, I have concluded that the
experience of utilizing Scratch and MaKey MaKeys in a maker space context is rich
in the principles of self-efficacy, engagement, and motivation, and weaker in the
principles of tenacity and flow as means to achieve our goals of sparking curiosity
and promoting enrichment.
1
An overview of the strengths and weaknesses of SMEFT in Guerrilla Maker Space may be found in
Table 1 of the Appendix.
20
For the purposes of my analysis, I will narrow my focus to outline two
specific types of makers we encountered during each GMS: the curious creator and
the wary participant. The curious creator has an initial sense of self-efficacy, is
motivated to create and learn, and is motivated to move forward in the face of a
challenge. They are more eager to endure in the exercise of making and more likely
to continue to make uninterrupted. The goal of a curious creator is to enrich what
they already know – that is, to expand their knowledge of programming and
creating with technology and discover new ways to tinker with pre-existing
interests. In sum, the curious creator hopes to dive deep.
Wary participants, on the other hand, are most often lured in by familiarity
and playfulness, and motivated to continue participating in the experience once they
find a hook – something that resonates and sticks – whether that be in the form of
finding a way to further pre-existing interests with the technology, finding an
intriguing yet accessible problem to solve, or discovering a brand new interest. After
the wary participant finds initial motivation and becomes engaged in their
experience, they are more likely to gain confidence, tenacity, and flow. The wary
participant hopes to have their interest piqued; the ultimate goal is not yet
enrichment, but rather, engagement and discovery.
As an experience aimed at sparking curiosity with an added bonus of
enrichment, Guerrilla Maker Space is rich in opportunities to tap into the intrinsic
motivations of all kinds of makers. Like the technologies involved in the space, GMS
takes a “low floors, high ceilings, wide walls” approach to ease wary participants
into the space while challenging curious creators to push their creative capacities.
21
While both types of makers are initially drawn to the space through the curious
collection of items (and gentle facilitator probing), familiarity and variety are key to
tapping into the intrinsic motivations of wary participants. Familiar physical items
(bananas, clay, etc.) initially draw users in (“I know those items!”), the novel
applications pique their curiosity (“How are they being used differently?”), then the
realized potential to manipulate such applications to suit personal interests sparks
intrinsic motivation (“How can I use these items to create something personally
meaningful?”). As an open maker space, GMS has the capacity to motivate learners
of all learning styles, interests, and levels of familiarity with the materials at hand;
finding a pathway to intrinsic motivation is quite easy. Tapping into the prior
interests of wary participants, however, is more difficult to do with the
unpredictable time frames that exist by way of being a pop up space. Additionally, as
noted by Lepper and Henderlong’s article, autonomy and choice play an important
part in sustaining intrinsic motivation for all learners; both types of makers are
motivated to self-direct their projects, their timelines, and the degree in which they
interact with others (2000). Yet in both cases, the level of challenge is generally low;
even curious creators do not often aim to build complex systems during their time at
GMS, though they certainly have the capacity to do so. I believe this is linked to a
lack of learning goals and our emphasis on a low-floors approach; people who may
be motivated to higher levels of engagement do not have the necessary models or
structures in place to challenges themselves. As Jere Brophy notes, supporting
learning goals and providing optimally challenging content and activities are not
22
only key to motivationally optimal learning situations, but also part of the
motivational zone of proximal development (1999, p. 77).
GMS, however, provides little built-in methods to tap into extrinsic
motivation; there are no concrete learning objectives and no official opportunities to
showcase skills or projects. Though some participants are moved by the social
rewards of engaging in a playful, creative space with friends, GMS does little to
support external social motivators. Although we (as facilitators) do attempt to
encourage participants with praise, we make little attempt to praise effort, which
may aid in developing intrinsic motivation.
Once participants find a reason to engage with GMS, tapping into self-efficacy
helps sustain their participation. The logical interfaces of both Scratch and MaKey
MaKey aid self-efficacy in both curious creators and wary participants; while
curious creators are moved by the sense of immediate control and the value of
potential outcomes, wary participants slowly engage more as they realize how easy
it is to interact with the technology (Schunk and Pajares, 2005). The Mario game
comes into play here: though wary participants might not yet believe in their
creative technology abilities, most are interested in playing games, which acts as a
catalyst to developing enough self-efficacy to be moved to make. Wary participants,
however, are less likely to value the act of making itself, which Schunk and Parajes
note is a key to developing self-efficacy (2005).
Guerrilla Maker Spaces are most often successful in engaging both types of
makers as well. The vibrant colors provided by MaKey MaKey’s wires, the playful
sounds of our Scratch projects, and array of intriguing materials draw all users in
23
through a sense of joy, glee, and delight. The high aesthetic appeal and the
immediate sense of novelty in GMS cannot be emphasized enough as the main keys
to our success. With wary participants in particular, the combination of physical and
digital is key to sustaining engagement in the space, providing multiple access
points for creation. Both technologies, designed to yield immediate results (and
rewards) also aid in increased engagement; participants are able to instantly see the
effects of engaging with the space. The allure of the physical items, however,
distinctly overshadows the allure to engage with Scratch. In our six maker spaces,
only a handful of participants have opted to engage directly with Scratch, but all are
willing to engage with Scratch through MaKey MaKeys.
When engaging wary participants, we are quick to place a wire, piece of clay,
or any handy device into their hands to showcase the immediate rewards of the
combined technologies. Because of this, we find that trust, an element identified by
Attfield, Kazai, Lalmas, and Piwowarski as essential to engagement, is must be
established in the space (2011). Christan and I do our best to be respectful and
friendly while attempting to cross into the physical space barriers of our
participants to immediately establishing trust. We find that the sense of personal
camaraderie aids both wary participants and curious creators in engaging at high
levels. Supportive social contexts, notes Brophy, also aid in the facilitation of
motivation (1999, p. 77).
Environment, in addition, plays an important role in engagement. Though
Christan and I do our best to invite people into our pop-up space, the nature of the
environments we choose dictate engagement levels. Open spaces, such as parks and
24
museums, prime participants to be more open to creativity; in spaces with more
strict regulations, such as metro stations and pubs, participants are less likely to
engage in activities that deviate from the norm.
As a pop-up space, Guerrilla Maker Space does not lend itself easily as an
opportunity to experience sustained flow; however, many users who stay for longer
periods of time at the space are able to tap into flow-like states. Optimal flow,
according to Csikszentmihalyi, occurs when an activity strikes a balance between
boredom (ease of use) and anxiety (challenge). An individual experiencing flow will
circle between boredom, flow, and anxiety, seeking higher challenges as skills are
increased, but returning to the safety of lower challenges if anxiety levels rise too
high. On this thought, Csikszentmihalyi writes, “It is this dynamic feature that
explains why flow activities lead to growth and discovery. One cannot enjoy doing
the same thing at the same level for long” (1991, p. 75). Through the multiple
challenge levels built into the technologies utilized of Guerrilla Maker Space and the
variety of hands-on experiences, GMS participants have the capacity to experience
the kinds of growth and discovery outlined by Csikszentmihalyi. GMS also has the
capacity to “alter the consciousness” of every day life by offering unexpected
experiences in familiar environments and spark flow through happiness achieved by
autonomy and control (Csikszentmihalyi, 1991, p. 6 & 72). Due to time constraints,
however, such experiences do not often happen within the scope of Guerrilla Maker
Space, and are virtually impossible to tap into in wary participants.
Similarly, time constraints, paired with a lack of concrete learning goals, limit
opportunities to experience tenacity, perseverance, and grit. GMS participants most
25
often are not prepared to spend a portion of their day tinkering; even the most
curious creators most often have somewhere to be. Thus, few makers stay with us
for the amounts of time necessary to produce circumstances in which one must
utilize tenacity to move beyond challenges. Though we do see small instances of
problem solving, our participants problem solve within the shallow learning goal of
sparking curiosity; that is, the obstacles they aim to tackle are too small to
necessitate grit and tenacity. Creating challenging learning goals, according to the
U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology, are a necessary part
of optimizing a learning situation that might require tenacity (2013).
Recommendations to improve SMEFT in Guerrilla Maker Space
My plan to improve Guerrilla Maker Spaces is threefold: strategic targeted
facilitation, clearer learning goals, and carefully selected environments, I believe,
will help optimize GMS as an experience rich in SMEFT in future endeavors. While
establishing trust and building friendly connections is important, my research on
SMEFT has shown me that facilitators have the potential to influence engagement
and motivation through strategic approaches. As informed by the work of Dweck,
effort-oriented praise will both intrinsically motivate participants in their time at
GMS and encourage them to seek growth opportunities in digital and physical
creation experiences in the future (2013). I would like to experiment with the kinds
of mastery-oriented praise given while facilitating GMS as well as phrases that
promote challenge and curiosity.
26
In addition, I believe GMS would also benefit from a standardization of
facilitation principles by developing best practices to approach curious creators and
wary participants alike. Achieving self-efficacy not only requires a sense of
autonomy, but also a clear understanding of parameters of a task at hand. Similarly,
as Ryan and Deci note, providing pathways to personalized experiences increase
intrinsic motivation, but they do not necessarily have the capacity to push learning
(2000, p. 70). A balance between allowing agency and providing structure is
necessary to move participants into more challenging levels of engagement.
Strategic facilitation may also involve the makers themselves: by pairing up
participants, they may be more likely to explore and teach each other. Per the
Protégé Effect, learners are more likely to make greater efforts to learn when
responsible for a protégé or apprentice (Chase, Chin, Oppezzo, & Schwartz, 2009).
Asking participants to teach each other (within appropriate social boundaries and
after establishing necessary trust) may aid in establishing more opportunities for
participants to deeply engage with the space.
By somehow establishing immediate learning goals, we may be able to move
curious creators to build more complex creations with Scratch as well. In our next
iteration, I’d like to experiment with methods to establish learning goals in spite of
our pop up nature by verbally suggesting or listing out potential achievements on a
poster board. In this manner, participants may still feel in charge of their
engagement while feeling motivated to move towards growth. This improvement
will also aid in creating a more optimal environment for participants to experience
tenacity and flow.
27
Lastly, after moving through this analysis, it is clear to me that we must seek
out future spaces that are optimized for open creativity. Participants are less likely
to be engaged in spaces with pre-established rules or regulations. Such restrictions
impact affect, which in turn impacts motivation and likelihood of engagement. Users
are more likely to engage when they are experiencing positive emotions; choosing a
space that naturally promotes positivity makes sense (Attfield, Kazai, Lalmas, &
Piwowarski, 2011). Additionally, participants may be more open to spending more
time with GMS when they are in spaces of leisure without strict time limitations.
Though time is a clear barrier to achieving flow and tenacity, it will forever remain
outside of the GMS’s locus of control, for we are interested in maintaining our popup nature to continue to impact a wide range of participants.
In conclusion, while the SMEFT potential of Guerrilla Maker Space is high,
there are certainly aspects of the experience that may be further optimized to
promote engagement and motivation. When we established the project, our goals
were small; we hoped to spark curiosity and provide a bit of enrichment to an
unsuspecting maker’s day in hopes that they might carry that curiosity to creatively
make with technology with them in future endeavors. By further optimizing our
future Guerrilla Maker Spaces and associated curricula to be rich in SMEFT
opportunities, I believe we may be able to expand our goals and our network of
GMS-minted learners and makers.
28
Works Cited
Aragon, C. R., Poon, S. S., Monroy-Hernández, A., Aragon, D (2009). A tale of two
online communities: fostering collaboration and creativity in scientists and
children. In Proceeding of the seventh ACM conference on Creativity and
cognition (C&C '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 9-18.
Attfield, S, Kazai, G, Lamas, M, Piwowarski, B. (2011). Towards a Science of User
Engagement. WSDM Workshop on User Modeling for Web Applications,
Hong Kong, China.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control (Chapter 1). New York:
W.H. Freeman.
Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ’making’ in education: The
democratization of invention. In J. Walter- Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.),
FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors. Bielefeld: Transcript
Publishers.
Brennan, K. (2013). Learning computing through creating and connecting. IEEE
Computer, Special Issue: Computing in Education.
Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education:
Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and
activities. Educational Psychologist, 34, 75-85.
Chase, C., Chin, D. B., Oppezzo, M. & Schwartz, D. S. (2009). Teachable agents and the
protege effect. Journal of Science Education and Technology 18(4), 334-352.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Chapter 4 in Flow: the psychology of optimal
experience (1st ed.) New York: Harper Perennial.
Dweck, C. S. (2002). Messages that motivate: How praise molds students' beliefs,
motivation, and performance (in surprising ways). In J. Aronson
(Ed.), Improving academic achievement (pp. 37-60). New York: Academic
Press.
Hartman, B A., Miller, B. K., & Nelson, D. L. (1999). The Effects of hands-on
occupation versus demonstration on children’s recall memory. The American
Journal of Occupational Therapy 54, pp. 477-483.
Kollock, P. (1999). The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in
Cyberspace. Smith, M. and Kollock, P. eds. Communities in Cyberspace,
Routledge, London.
29
Lepper, M. R., & Henderlong, J. (2000). Turning "play" into "work" and "work" into
"play": 25 years of research on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. In C.
Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The
search for optimal motivation and performance(pp. 257-307). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press, Inc.
Makerspace. (2012). Makerspace Playbook (draft).
Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., Eastmond, E. (2010). The Scratch
Programming Language and Environment. ACM Transactions on Computing
Education, November 2010.
National Research Council. (2012). Report to Congress.
Resnick, M. (1998). Technologies for lifelong kindergarten. In Educational
Technology Research & Development, 1998.
Resnick, M. (2007). All I Really Need to Know (About Creative Thinking) I Learned
(By Studying How Children Learn) in Kindergarten. Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition, Washington, D.C.
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K.,
… Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for All. Communications of the
ACM, November 2009.
Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. In M. Honey & D.E.
Kanter, Design, Make, Play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators
(pp. 163- 181). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American
Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2005). Competence beliefs in academic functioning. In A.
J. Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 85104). New York: Guilford Press.
Silver, J. & Rosenbaum, E. (2012). "Makey Makey: Improvising Tangible and NatureBased User Interfaces." in proceedings of the International Conference on
Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. (2013). Promoting
Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st
Century.
Young Adult Library Services Association. (2014). Making in the Library Toolkit:
Makerspace Resources Taskforce.
30
Appendix
Table 1: Overview of strengths and weaknesses of SMEFT in curious creators and
wary participants in Guerrilla Maker Space
SMEFT
Curious Creators
Wary Participants
Self-efficacy
Strengths:
Participants who arrive at GMS with
preconceived feelings of ability are
more likely to engage with the creative
technologies.
Strengths:
Initial perceived capacity to engage with technology is
lower, but increased as familiarity with the physical
materials and intrinsic influencers come into play.
The logical interfaces of MaKey MaKey
and Scratch are easy to use, resulting
in immediate feelings of success and
ability, and control.
As a self-directed, open space,
participants may enter from any
learning level at any learning style.
Weaknesses:
Because of limited time frames, GMS
has a limited capacity to push curious
creators beyond their perceived
personal capacities to challenge them
to try out more complex applications.
Motivation
Strengths:
GMS plays up the interests of people
who are intrinsically motivated to
create and explore.
The “high ceilings” capacities of each
technology present enough challenge
to keep more familiar participants
motivated.
Flexibility in usage, complexity, and
outcome
Self-directed timelines for completion
Weaknesses:
The more challenging applications of
GMS (through Scratch) are less
obvious.
Experienced tinkerers prefer to
experiment on their own timelines in
their own spaces.
Once users get over the initial hump of participating in
an unexpected event, tapping into preconceived abilities
and motivations is much easier.
The principles of autonomy and control are emphasized
through facilitation and modeling.
The “low floor” logical interfaces of MaKey MaKey and
Scratch are easy to use, resulting in immediate feelings
of success and ability.
As a self-directed, open space, participants may enter
from any learning level at any learning style.
Weaknesses:
Value-outcome is not as obvious; wary participants do
not necessarily understand why participating in GMS
might be important or enriching.
Strengths:
The visual set up of GMS sparks curiosity; the physical
items used are common enough to tap into a feeling of
familiarity; the items are varied enough to appeal to a
wide range of users.
The notion of autonomy is appealing to people with low
preconceived abilities.
Multiple levels of participation appeal to a wide variety
of participants
Weaknesses:
Helping wary participants use prior interests as a way
to break into using the technologies is more difficult to
do with limited time frames.
Wary participants who may be more likely to participate
with the initial appeal of an extrinsic motivator are
turned off by a lack of opportunity.
Growth mindset-oriented feedback is minimal
31
Engagement
Strengths:
Use of visually colorful and audibly
playful sensory experiences
The experience of high positive
emotions is common for all
participants.
The design of both technologies yield
immediate reward/results
Weaknesses:
The nature of the environment GMS
exists in dictates the level of
engagement; people are more likely to
engage in open, flexible spaces and less
likely to engage in spaces with strict
regulations.
Flow
Strengths:
The spirit of discovery, variety of
physical items, and endless potential of
the technologies factor into the
capacity for curious creators to
achieve flow.
By altering the notions of what a space
“should” be used for, GMS creates an
ideal environment for participants to
enter the altered state of reality
necessary for flow.
Tenacity
Weaknesses:
Limited time capacity inhibits flow.
Strengths:
Problem-solving results in deep
interaction with the materials at hand;
tinkering often leads to hours of
engagement
Weaknesses:
Lack of explicit learning goals limits
opportunities to display grit and
tenacity.
Strengths:
Use of visually colorful and audibly playful sensory
experiences
The experience of high positive emotions is common for
all participants.
The design of both technologies yield immediate
reward/results.
The combination of digital/physical manipulatives
facilitates multiple entry points to engagement
Capacity to interact with others increases likelihood of
engagement
Weaknesses:
The mess of wires on the table is often an immediate
turn-off for people who self-identify as technophobes.
Weaknesses:
Virtually no wary participants moved on to a flow-like
stage beyond the initial curiosity pique.
Limited time capacity inhibits flow.
GMS is not designed to make “optimal experiences”
easier to achieve; it is designed to spark curiosity.
Weaknesses:
If no learning goals are established beyond sparking
curiosity and some level of enrichment, wary
participants are unlikely to display tenacity beyond the
initial first step.
32