Hackerspaces and Engineering Education
C. K. Harnett
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Louisville
Louisville, KY, USA
c0harn01@louisville.edu
S. B. Philipp
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Miami University
Oxford, OH, USA
philipsb@miamioh.edu
Abstract—During the past two years, we investigated the
Louisville, Kentucky hackerspace as a venue for hosting
undergraduate engineering student projects. The projects took
place at LVL1.org, a collaborative workshop in downtown
Louisville. There are such "makerspaces" or "hackerspaces" in
most medium to large-sized US and European cities. Our nine
participants developed a strong sense of project ownership
during their semester, learned skills from hackerspace members,
and were interviewed about the effect of the experience on their
attitudes toward engineering. Most reported increased
confidence in their problem-solving and project-planning
abilities. Project-based learning is an important element in an
engineer's education, because it gives opportunities for students
to encounter the unexpected and exercise their creativity. The
students were able to spend one semester working on their
projects full time through the University of Louisville’s co-
operative education (Co-op) program. Co-ops proposed their
own projects, and came from five different engineering
departments: electrical, civil, industrial, mechanical, and
bioengineering. We describe common themes found among our
participants, including the "start-over" pattern and the pattern
of activities when students encountered a new technical problem.
We discuss how these experiences equipped the students with
new skills and attitudes for tackling ill-structured problems.
Keywords—Project-based learning; engineering education;
hackerspaces; makerspaces
I. INTRODUCTION: SEEKING A NEW PLACE FOR PROJECT-
BASED LEARNING
Engineering education is supposed to prepare students for a
productive career spanning decades. However, the fast pace of
technology means a student’s own laptop can become nearly
obsolete during the four or five-year path through college.
Engineering students certainly need a solid background in math
and science, but for long-term success they also must know
how to identify new problems and find new resources to solve
them. During their training, students need to encounter the
unexpected and exercise their creativity. Project-based
978-1-4799-3922-0/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE
T. R. Tretter
College of Education and Human Development
University of Louisville
Louisville, KY, USA
tom.tretter@louisville.edu
learning, and even student-defined projects, are one way to fill
in the creativity gap, and at the same time provide
opportunities to practice project management skills. We
recently connected a local “makerspace” with an engineering
school’s internship program to integrate more intensive
student-driven projects into the undergraduate engineering
curriculum. This report discusses the experiences of nine
University of Louisville engineering students who each did a
semester-long co-operative internship at the LVL1 makerspace
in Louisville, Kentucky.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Co-operative Engineering Education
Employers and universities have long recognized the need
for practical experience alongside math and science
fundamentals. Approaches to incorporate practical experiences
in engineering education typically include laboratory courses
or project-based courses. While helpful, the use of a novel
model of laboratory instruction based on Kolb’s Experiential
Learning Theory [1,2] showed that students are not strongly
prepared to take advantage of the hands-on time in the limited
laboratory period, which restricts the extent to which this
approach can address the issue. Also, project-based courses are
generally expensive and difficult to fit into the crowded
engineering curriculum. For this reason, some schools have
internship semesters where students join a company and spend
time working on a larger project. Such co-operative internship
programs, or “co-ops,” are established at many engineering
schools; the one at the University of Louisville Speed School
of Engineering has operated for more than 85 years.
Most co-op programs have students work at a company for
a semester, then return to the classroom. Students at the
University of Louisville complete three co-op semesters
interspersed with coursework; the co-ops may be at the same or
different companies. The combined goals of the academic and
co-op program are for engineering students to:
 • Know the fundamentals of mathematics and science
that are the foundation of engineering
• Integrate theory and practice in the workplace
• Develop professional and interpersonal skills
• Successfully make the transition to work and carry out
a career in industry, research, or government
Because hundreds of students will need an internship each
semester, the co-op office maintains relationships between the
engineering school and the community, small and large
companies, local academic labs, other universities, and
professional organizations that might hire student interns.
These internships cover a wide variety of disciplines. In a
typical co-op, students work on a pre-defined task and do not
have much control over the nature of the job [3]. At the end of
the co-op, the employer evaluates the student on several
criteria, including “demonstrates the ability to identify,
formulate, and solve engineering problems,” “tries new
approaches to get the job done,” and “carries out tasks with
minimal supervision.” While these attributes are as important
to employers as formal engineering knowledge, they are
difficult to teach and assess in the classroom. We became
interested in “makerspaces” as sites for internships that would
give students a chance to develop their resourcefulness,
creativity and initiative.”
B. Makerspaces
Makerspaces, also called “hackerspaces,” are community-
based engineering and craft workshops that originated in
Europe and expanded throughout the United States in the late
‘00s, with more than 20 active spaces in the Midwest alone [4],
including Louisville’s space LVL1 [5,6]. As of this writing,
LVL1 had 70 members, some from the engineering school,
many from local software companies, some connected with K-
12 education and some from other parts of the Louisville
community. Activities include workshops covering diverse
topics (circuit design, sewing, beekeeping) and “hackathons”
where members compete to reach a goal in a limited amount of
time. Makerspaces operate independently, but interact with
other spaces through visits, online postings, and events
worldwide such as the Maker Faire [7]. Most makerspaces
have similar structures and goals to LVL1, and many colleges
and universities have an informal relationship with a nearby
makerspace, so the results of this program may be applicable
elsewhere. Through the new resource of the makerspace, we
wanted to investigate the following questions (with short
version of the core of the question in parentheses for ease of
reference):
• How does the makerspace experience impact
students’ development of independence in an
unstructured setting? (develop independence)
• An engineering student’s grades predict surprisingly
little about the skill of using time and resources
wisely in an unstructured environment, which is a
vital component in the success of research projects.
Can we identify students with high potential to
develop independent research abilities and provide
them with experiences that make them more skilled at
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science
Foundation under Grant No. 1136708.
solving new research problems? (make progress on
skills for tackling ill-structured problems)
• How can the internship help participants develop a
“learning” orientation (carrying out activities to
increase mastery of a subject, taking responsibility to
find and learn new information) rather than a
“performance” orientation (carrying out only those
activities that result in a completed project, report, or
grade)? (develop attitudes about tackling ill-
structured problems)
III. METHODOLOGY
We use ethnographic research (Bhattacharyya, (2007) to
describe the culture of the participants in the makerspace,
including the students working there in their cooperative work
program. The first component is the makerspace culture itself,
which we describe through observation of the LVL1 group by
‘outsiders’ (the education co-authors) with access to an insider
perspective (engineering co-author). The second component is
the attitudes and beliefs of the co-op student participants about
the makerspace and the work they do there. Supporting data for
this component comes from discussions with the makerspace
leaders and mentors, interviews with the students, and written,
electronic, and physical products that the students generate.
Interviews and observations focus on how the engineering
students make sense of the culture of the makerspace as
newcomers and how they change as engineers because of
joining the makerspace culture [8]. We aim to understand the
meaning-making processes of the engineering student
participants as members of the makerspace, not as engineering
students in general. Students met each week with the
engineering mentor, who recorded their technical
accomplishments and setbacks. Students were also interviewed
at the beginning, middle, and end of the Co-op semester. A
delayed post-interview is also planned after students have
experienced a subsequent Co-op in a more traditional setting.
Other data include student-generated work, and documents
such as photographs collected by the makerspace members.
Analyses of all qualitative data will follow ethnographic norms
by generating a rich description of the makerspace culture as
experienced by the students and students’ growth within that
makerspace culture. Themes and common trends will be
identified, as will unique circumstances or occurrences that
lead to a substantial impact on students.
IV. RESULTS
Because ethnographic research lends itself well to a
presentation format of telling stories firmly grounded in the
evidence, these results will weave together syntheses of the
various data sources to generate storylines to characterize the
impact of the makerspace-based co-op experience on
engineering students.
A. The Setting, from the Outside Looking In
From an educational perspective, I looked at the
makerspace as a place with potential for fostering creativity,
independence of thought, and resourcefulness of the student.
The research questions we are trying to answer in this project
include discovering what characteristics of this co-op program
positively affect (1) the independent work skills of students, (2)
the ability of the students to make progress on ill-structured
problems and (3) the enhancement of attitudes to tackling ill-
structured engineering problems. I describe here how
makerspace co-op environment may work with the student to
strengthen the three outcomes above.
Shortly after the makerspace internship program started in
May 2012, I visited a regularly-scheduled open meeting,
social, and make time at the maker space just east of
downtown. I met one of our co-op students, T.L., in the
parking lot that the makerspace shared with the business next
door and we walked in together. We were warmly greeted
inside LVL1 (814 E. Broadway), and soon after Cindy Harnett
(PI, EE professor) and Tom Tretter (co-PI and Ed. professor)
joined us as well as S. E., our other co-op student. By the time
the official meeting started, there were about 25 people (4
women, 21 men, women were all under 45, men varied in ages
from college age to 50’s or early 60’s) in the main area of
LVL1 and several more men joined the meeting after it had
commenced.
Upon entering the makerspace, I felt the energy and
goodwill generated by the people that come to the makerspace.
Talk was excited and loud, punctuated often by joking about
obscure facts and bursts of good-natured laughter. The social
aspect of the makerspace was very evident. Besides equipment
and tools used for making things, there were also spaces for
food preparation and eating, the refrigerator was stocked with
soft drinks and beer, there were old overstuffed couches and a
flat screen TV equipped with a large supply of DVDs. WI-FI
was available and many people had laptops or netbooks. I saw
very few iPads on this visit, which was a surprise to me
because I had assumed the makerspace members would want
the latest tech toy.
Another aspect of the makerspace that stood out was the
use of text. All pieces of equipment were labeled with what the
tool does and who “hosts” it. Bins, shelves, cabinets and
cupboards were labeled with what belongs there. There were
definite boundaries to work areas (power tools, soldering,
large areas for big projects, music studio, etc), but it was not
evident that individuals are assigned their own areas. There
were billboards and message boards that shared information
in paper and digital formats. The meeting itself was focused
around a carefully organized outline that was projected for all
to see as they grouped around tables. The makerspace also
has a very text-laden website that is visited often by members
and non-members.
A third aspect of the makerspace that impressed me as an
outside visitor was the intentional organization of procedures
and policies. These policies were devised and implemented to
foster the democracy and openness of the makerspace. From
the website, there were many phrases used to convey the vision
of openness for the makerspace:
LVL1 is a hackerspace in Louisville. A hackerspace is an
open community lab and workshop democratically operated by
its membership. We are friendly community of tinkerers,
makers, engineers, educators, scientists, artists, hackers and
overall geeks. Anyone who is, aspires to be, or just wants to
hang around smart, creative, friendly mad scientist
maker/hacker Louisvillians is welcome at LVL1!
(lvl1.org/about, retrieved May 9, 2012)
All visitors are required to sign a liability waiver releasing
LVL1 from claims due to injury. Members have key swipe
cards to enter the building 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and
their swipe is recorded by date and time in and out. New
members join with sponsorship by an existing member and pay
a $50 per month membership fee. No one is required to join to
use the facilities, but membership connotes 24/7 access to the
space and voting rights in the organization. The makerspace is
managed by a volunteer board of directors that is elected
annually by the membership. The officers are: president, vice-
president, secretary, treasurer and three at-large board
members.
On the night of my visit, both co-op students were taken on
tours of the makerspace and became acquainted with several
members who may share similar interests. S wondered if there
would be a dedicated space for him to work on his solar cell
phone battery charger. T mentioned his biggest challenge was
going to be finding out who could best help him learn the skills
he needed for his project. Both co-op students have mentors:
S’s mentor is a University professor from the Conn Center for
Renewable Energy and T’s mentor is PI Cindy Harnett.
A summary of characteristics of the maker space culture
that I gleaned from the observations I made at this first visit:
The makerspace:
• Is a friendly place where an outsider would feel
welcome almost immediately.
• Has drawn people from all ages and attitudes who
share a love of extremes, as evidenced by text from
the website, general meeting, and notices observed at
the makerspace: “Caffeine-Fueled 24-hour
Hackathon”, “Hot and Spicy Fest”, “Power Wheels
Re-Engineered to Operate at Unsafe Speeds”,
Butterscotch the Fire-Breathing Pony”
• Has drawn people from all ages and attitudes who
value imagination, design, and fabrication of
imagined designs as shown by the website project list:
laser cut gear clock, music synthesizers, video game
development, robotics….
• Encourages big ideas (Trans-Atlantic balloon project,
makerships, maker faires, sensors everywhere)
• Supports education and community engagement:
makerfaires, hackathons, workshops, IdeaFestival,
urban planning project, collaborations with the city
science center, public schools, private schools.
• Allows all members a voice and vows to keep
innovation open to all (bylaws and mission
statement).
• Fosters collaboration (project roll call, items needed
announcements) and celebrates valiant efforts that
failed (Failure Board)
 • Makes social events a priority (food, entertainment,
movie viewing nights, humor, introductions)
• Supports beginners (workshops, makerships, hosts,
labels) and rewards veteran members (stories in the
press, collaboration on projects).
B. The Characters, in Their Own Words
The lived experiences of the students in this project are
presented based on the series of interviews and synthesized to
portray key pieces of evidence for impact of this experience.
Interview questions ranged across a spectrum of topics, often
driven by the student in the sense that their responses and
comments guided the interview. That body of interview
statements and comments are collected below under the
primary topic headings addressed by the research questions.
1) Independent work
a) Entering the experience.
As might be expected from students who self-selected to
apply to this co-op experience, they unanimously expressed a
strong desire for a work atmosphere where they were expected
to be independent and self-starters. They variously expressed
this as a desire to “expand creativity that other co-op positions
didn’t necessarily do for me” as well as a desire to “be a jack of
all trades and able to do all parts of a project.” The
comparisons to prior or alternative co-op opportunities were
particularly highlighted by more experienced students who
typically had already had other co-op experiences. One even
made an explicit comparison to a prior co-op experience by
saying that the prior co-op “didn’t require as much thinking”
[as he wanted] and so he had already turned down an offer to
do a second co-op with the same company prior to becoming
aware of the makerspace co-op opportunity. This desire for
experiences with independence as a prominent characteristic
was also expressed as “wish this [makerspace approach] was
part of the curriculum because it takes class concepts and you
do it in real life.”
For the students in their first co-op experience, in addition
to expressing a desire for independence as one of the
motivating aspects that led them to apply for this co-op, several
also indicated that this experience gave them “a chance to
experience engineering to decide if I like it” and in a different
case tied the experience explicitly to the independent project
aspect by saying that “having my own project can help me
decide if I really want to be an engineer.” One of these early
co-op students even “had a big company offering a better
paying co-op, but LVL1 seemed a better fit for developing
experiences [he wants to have].” Thus, there was a clear
preference for the independent nature of this co-op experience
as one of the incoming motivating factors for these students.
b) Exiting the experience.
At the conclusion of the semester-long co-op, student
interviews revealed an even stronger appreciation for the
independent nature of the work. Students reported that
“independence at LVL1 was an advantage – I had help if I
needed it but I could manage things on my own.” Several used
the label ‘boss’ to describe this characteristic of the experience
for them: “I was the boss and the person responsible for all of it
[the project]” and “at LVL1 I was the boss – I had to lead.”
Many of these comments about the benefits and advantages of
independence contrasted that experience with the possibility of
the opposite experience in some other co-op settings. An
experienced student reported that by contrast “at a previous co-
op I was the assistant with others telling me what to do” and a
student new to co-ops reported that a friend in a different
setting was “an assistant to a technician and was a gofer who
did what he was told.”
Students also reported some of the challenges of the
independent nature of the work, but these were challenges that
they ultimately welcomed and considered as a growing
experience for them. Several students commented on the need
for self-discipline given that there was no supervisor looking
over your shoulder every day. One reported that he
strengthened his self-discipline when he “was tempted to slack
off … but was able to keep working steadily by creating a
schedule.” Another student commented that this environment
“may be hard for a less-experienced student – the days may
need to be structured and they may need more supervision.” In
addition to the internal challenge of being responsible to
yourself for continuous effort, there was also the external
challenge of “an early steep learning curve” that led some to be
“surprised how often I had to learn new things.” Students
unanimously reported learning many new things, from
engineering-centric tasks like programming in Java and
building circuits, to process skills such as locating resources
and information (online and off), to people skills such as
knowing when and how to ask for and offer help.
Those who at the beginning of the semester expressed that
one of their goals was to explore if engineering really is a
career path for them independently returned to that theme in
the closing interview at the end of the semester, suggesting that
this purpose for choosing this co-op experience was an
enduring one that they kept in mind the entire semester. Their
responses were as brief as “I do!” [really want to be an
engineer] and as nuanced as expressing that, “I am now more
interested in computer engineering than ever and may want to
combine that with electrical engineering,” – perhaps in part
driven by the interdisciplinary nature of the knowledge needed
to complete a project.
2) Tackling ill-structured problems.
a) Entering the experience.
Upon entering this co-op experience, many students,
particularly those in their first co-op experience, hadn’t fully
considered implications of tackling ill-structured problems – a
phrase that we chose not to use in order to avoid artificially
drawing attention to this aspect of the experience. Related
concepts students focused on included the desire to “learn the
whole process of a project, from idea phase to prototype” and
the desire “to improve feeling able to work through a problem
without getting stuck.” One student even expressed that he
hopes this experience “gives me a controlled environment
where I am comfortable failing,” reflecting a well-developed
perspective of effective environments for learning.
 b) Exiting the experience.
Midway through the semester and at the end of the
semester, students were much more strongly aware of the ill-
structured nature of their problem-solving experience and
unequivocally expressed appreciation for their own learning
that resulted. Every project had unexpected moments –
something that didn’t work the way originally envisioned, or
some key aspect that was originally overlooked. In short,
normal engineering experiences. A short list of comments
about the value of experiencing such an environment is
presented in Table 1.
TABLE I. POST CO-OP COMMENTS EXPRESSING VALUE OF ILL-
STRUCTURED PROBLEM-SOLVING ENVIRONMENT
“I have valuable experience at figuring out how to answer my own
questions”
“I am capable of thinking”
“I gained confidence in my own judgments about how to solve problems
on my own”
“When I realized my first idea would not work, I had to do more
research.”
“I am more innovative now, and I can go to Plan B. I’m good at
researching and asking the right questions.”
“Skills were gained here that you could not in a class, such as the larger
complication that occurred in later development of my program [and how
to approach solving it]”
“My strengths now are that I can drive myself to find a solution. I was
worried about the lack of a straight path to a solution. It was not easy, but
I now know I can do it.”
One dominant theme that students reported on was the need
for stronger and more thorough planning. This was true for
both the more and less experienced students. When asked what
they might do differently if they were to start again, knowing
what they now know, students said that they would: “step back
and do more planning to get the big picture before jumping in;”
“design more thoroughly before starting;” “plan better next
time – would write down what I needed to do in more detail;”
and “do more planning which would lead to less trial-and-
error.” One student shared that he “remembered reading an
article where a company planned for a year and I thought it
was a waste of time – but now I know better.” A student did
comment that the project proposal which was required as part
of the application to this co-op was useful for offering some
direction, and that “lack of direction is not a familiar way to
work and could be a problem for some students.”
3) Attitudes
a) Entering the experience.
Students appropriately approached this co-op with positive
attitudes about the nature of the experience they anticipated.
One commented that unlike a semester with 4-5 different
classes with different foci, he was “looking forward to time to
focus on one thing for 8 hours a day.” Most students also
passionately commented about their prior experiences building
things, tinkering, tweaking designs – that these experiences
were “the part [of a project] that made you think.” Based on a
pre-co-op visit plus review of the makerspace workshop
website prior to application, one student commented on the
positives as including: (a) “spectrum of projects happening
there;” (b) “goofy fun is encouraged;” (c) “excitement of the
community towards new ideas and others’ work;” and (d)
“supportive environment for tinkering.” Overall, students who
experienced this unique co-op environment brought attitudes
that were well-aligned with the makerspace culture.
b) Exiting the experience.
Anticipating a positive experience going in, students
nevertheless reported being pleasantly surprised by the entire
experience by the end of the semester. “I am definitely getting
to use my creativity and enjoying it” and “It’s been a great
experience – better than I thought in the beginning, with the
chance to improve in lots of areas” are typical of comments
made summarizing their experience. Students expressed
“enhanced confidence” across a variety of skill sets. Students
reported that one of the key elements that made the experience
so positive was the community of LVL1 members with whom
they interacted. These co-op students used individuals as
resources when needed, and felt that their projects were valued
and of interest to the community. They characterized the LVL1
members as “wonderful – you can ask any question.” An
interesting characterization of the makerspace environment
was described as, “a combination workshop and think tank.”
One student offered that “this has been one of the most joyous
experiences I have had while in college.”
C. The Products and the Processes
1) Engineering accomplishments as products
Besides interviews, we reviewed the engineering work
done by students on the way to their project goals. Because the
projects were the result of individual proposals, the engineering
outcomes from the co-ops’ projects were more self-contained
than a conventional research laboratory intern’s work, and
ranged over a diverse array of topics.
The nine student-originated topics were:
• A system to recycle broken solar cells into arrays
• A low-cost method to make waterproof housings
for environmental sensors
• An energy-efficient electric bicycle
• A wearable game controller
• A multi-player strategy computer game
• A strain monitoring system for sewer pipes
• A device to put a tool into the user’s hand at the
flick of a wrist
• An electronic chess set aware of its own
configuration
• An electric generator powered by body heat
Of these projects, only the solar cell system, waterproof
housings, and sewer pipe monitoring system were connected to
larger research efforts on the Louisville campus. All nine
projects were targeted at making a “final product,” except the
solar cell recycling system had some components of a service.
The progress of one of the projects is illustrated in Figure 1.
Nearly all students reported a point where they decided to
“scrap it” and start over after an earlier effort. The student in
Figure 1 had to change his plans three times; twice because of
problems with the equipment, and again when he finished his
original plan and wanted to develop his 3D skills by making a
cube puzzle.
 Timeline for an individual co-op student
Blog post about parts made using old 3D printer Student repairs new 3D printer
Student draws
up designs

Co-op Startup
and First Interview LVL1 Final Co-op
closed! Student starts NEW project: Interview
er
n

Design and build a cube puzzle

Off
tio
ica

with new 3D printer

b
Jo
pl
Ap

Days since start 0 50 100 150 200

rv op
te o
w

n
In id-C
ie

tio
New 3D printer arrives Email activity
Supplies order

ta
M
From co-op

en
au

es um
e ts
re
From mentor

g ds e;
Co rvic ar
bu

oc oc
in n et
se n p

pr d
st se pl

s
ca ent om
m tio
fro lu

on ud p c
e so

St -o
riv re
ar igh
H

but there’s a problem

Fig. 1. A typical co-op experience involved proposing a project, conducting a three- to four-month activity at the makerspace, working around problems, and
documenting the result online or in written reports. Students who enrolled in the study were interviewed before, during, and after the experience.

While each project contributed to student learning, some
were completed and some were not. It is hard to generalize
from only nine projects, but no project that involved both
software and hardware development was completed according
to the original plan during the internship period. These
complex projects could have easily been team efforts taking
more than one semester. In each case, when the student
realized what was happening, they chose the hardware branch,
possibly because of the specific knowledge available from the
LVL1 makerspace and the mentors.
All students were encouraged to document their work so
that another intern could carry on later. Because their
makerspace access lasted for one year, several students
continued working on their projects after the semester ended.
These were also the students who connected to the
makerspace community outside working hours, at meetings
and online.
Completed projects were very focused, and tended to
involve a measurement in addition to production of an
interesting object. “Does the sensor housing leak at a certain
amount of water pressure? What is the efficiency of the body
heat electrical generator? How many watts can I get out of this
refurbished solar panel?” These kinds of projects also tend to
be successful for research laboratory interns, who carry out
tasks such as optimizing power consumption of a wireless
sensor node. However, the makerspace culture prizes novelty
and interestingness, fantastic 3-D printed objects, and things
that are photogenic. Predictability and measurability are
welcome but usually not the end goal of a hackathon or other
makerspace activity. Topics that combine a measurement, an
interesting new object, and are weighted heavily either toward
hardware or software might be the ideal recipe for a semester-
long undergraduate engineering project in a makerspace.
2) Project based learning as a process for developing
engineers
The quality of the students’ efforts was comparable to that
of other laboratory interns Dr. Harnett had mentored on group
research projects. A key difference was that with these
individually-directed projects, it was much clearer what parts
were the students’ own effort. The makerspace co-ops
developed a strong sense of project ownership, but most did
not accomplish all the goals they had set out to do at the start
of the semester. They often discovered that each task would
spawn new sub-tasks that required new skills and materials. A
practicing engineer knows this is a universal pattern, but there
is little opportunity for students to learn this reality through
coursework.
a) Students learned modularity as an engineering method
At the outset of the co-op program, there was some
concern that LVL1 co-ops would suffer from information
overload and distraction. Successful project outcomes (in
terms of a completed plan) came from students who were
eager to learn new subjects, as long as they could plug a
relevant example into their plan without delay. Delay did lead
to indecision and distraction; mentoring was important to
ensure that students had a relevant example to work with at
the start of the internship. Students integrated new
components best by studying the example—typically a small
program or circuit module--then adjusting it to their needs.
Components or modules were integrated into these projects as
follows:
• Wearable game controller: Built around an online
example based on an Arduino [9] microcontroller
board by a student who did not have an electrical
engineering background.
• Computer game: Built using the existing
“Sokoban” game source code as a starting point,
but had completely different game mechanics by
the end.
• Strain monitoring system: An Arduino and
photocell example were a starting point for
another student without a programming or
electronics background
• Chess set: An Arduino chip reader example, and
a Raspberry Pi chess engine provided two key
parts of this complex project.
• Electric Generator: This student found online,
purchased and tested an energy harvesting circuit
that was produced by another individual, with
great success.
The co-op students were not satisfied to find an example
and copy it. Soon after locating and understanding an
example, the co-ops began to modify it toward their needs, for
instance changing the photocells to strain sensors in the pipe-
monitoring project. Students also used such examples as
placeholders when progress was blocked. For example, in the
chess project, an open-source game engine proved difficult to
integrate, but its existence freed up the student to work on
magnetic sensors without getting distracted by the game
mechanics.
These pre-built modules gave a significant speedup, but
re-use of others’ work is usually forbidden in academic classes
and laboratory courses. In contrast, makerspaces thrive on
collaboration, and modular design using off-the-shelf parts is
the key to rapidly testing new ideas in industry. Fresh
engineers are told not to “reinvent the wheel.” This co-op
program occupied a middle ground where re-use of existing
work was important, but where students needed to explain
what work was theirs, and what came from an outside source.
b) Students gained project planning experience
Most co-ops were resourceful in finding materials and
supplies, a skill that undergraduate research laboratory interns
do not get to practice very much. Students often found items
outside the usual industrial suppliers. The sensor housing
materials came from a supplier to the art and special-effects
industry, and the power converter for the energy harvesting
project was from a small company. Having to make a $400
budget caused the co-ops to think carefully about the next
step, especially in the case of the chessboard project, where
several sensors were needed in quantities of 64. The finite
budget affected the students’ design choices at the earliest
stages.
V. CONCLUSIONS
1) Can the makerspace co-op experience develop
independence?
One of our students said about his co-op “if it needs to be
fixed, I need to do it,” a sense of responsibility that he felt he
did not get from his previous restaurant job. Another felt more
confident in his own ability to “deal with it” and “drive”
himself to find solutions, an ability that he had worried about
before the co-op began. A third found that “if I can not get one
thing done, I can find a couple of other ways.”
From the perspective of a researcher mentoring a group of
graduate students, these remarks signal the critical point where
a student steps forward and claims some lab work as their
own. A sense of project ownership is closely tied to
independence, because the student no longer needs an external
motivation to work on their project.
2) How can a makerspace equip students to tackle ill-
structured problems?
If success does not come soon, most students can become
frustrated and inhibited. The makerspace often supplied
examples (for instance, completed Arduino projects) and
materials that helped students find “a couple of other ways” to
solve a problem. The combination of makerspace resources
and individual projects supported the participants’ increasing
ability to tackle ill-structured problems where often the most
challenging aspect was figuring out what to do next, not how
to do it.
3) Attitudes towards engineering: Can the experience
develop a learning orientation rather than a performance
orientation?
There is a conflict between performance and learning. In
an internship, performance of job goals is awarded a salary,
with learning a secondary concern. Even in this self-directed
project, most students started with a performance orientation.
For instance, co-ops would study the examples not for their
own sake, but to extract what was needed for the project. The
“scrap-it” point, where nearly all students reported a need to
start over after a prototype wasn’t successful, provided a great
opportunity to develop a learning orientation from a failed
performance. Although the initial attempt had problems, it
also had value as a learning experience, and students came to
realize and value the learning aspect.
4) Identifying students with potential to be independent
researchers
A student’s performance in a graded course shows how
well they understand the material, and is related to their
tendency to attend regularly and finish assigned tasks. More
difficult to get from course performance are attributes like
long-term focus, pragmatism, and tenacity. A student who [1]
learns from but is not excessively worried about short-term
failures might skip coursework and forgo some points if
something more important is happening elsewhere, and will [2]
not bother the professor with excuses. This is someone who
[3]
will probably not earn the top grade, who might be overlooked
as a prospective graduate student, but who might do very well
in a research setting. Research sometimes rewards impatience
and abandonment of plans that are not working. The co-op [4]
provided a window into students’ ability to change their
approach when necessary, and generally offered experiences [5]
that would serve a student well in a future graduate-level
research environment. [6]
ACKNOWLEDGMENT [7]
We thank the leadership of the LVL1 hackerspace, current
[8]
president Brad Luyster and founding president Christopher
Cprek, and the entire membership for informally guiding the
student participants and maintaining equipment, Dr. Thad
Druffel and Dr. Mark McGinley for mentoring students, Grace [9]
Simrall for data management, and Raymond M. Schreck,
Angela Cline, Sandra Von Hoven, and Penny Hoerter in the
University of Louisville Co-op office for their help in
recruiting participants.
REFERENCES
Abdulwahed, M. & Nagy, Z.K. 2009. “Applying Kolb’s experiential
learning cycle for laboratory education.” Journal of Engineering
Education. Vol. 98, pp. 283-294.
Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of
learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
M. Mayo. “Program Evaluation in a Business Environment: An
Employer’s Journey with Cooperative Education,” in Linn, Howard,
Miller (ed.). 2004. Handbook for Research in Cooperative Education
and Internships. New York: Routledge, chapter 13.
“List of Hacker Spaces,” 2009. HackerspaceWiki.
http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/List_of_Hacker_Spaces . Accessed: 25
April 2014.
“LVL1 hackerspace web site,” LVL1, 2014. http://lvl1.org . Accessed:
25 April 2014.
“The Hacktory,” LEO Weekly, January 29, 2011.
http://leoweekly.com/news/hacktory . Accessed: 25 April 2014.
“Maker Faire: The Greatest Show and Tell on Earth,” 2014, Maker
Media Inc. http://makerfaire.com/. Accessed: 25 April 2014.
Bhattacharyya, G. 2007. Ethnography and Ethnomethodology. In G.M.
Bodner & M. Orgill (eds.), Theoretical frameworks for research in
chemistry/science education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice
Hall, pp. 172-186.
“Arduino – Home Page, “ Arduino community, 2005. http://arduino.cc .
Accessed: 25 April 2014.