Makerspaces (or not) in elementary school libraries by Dami Philipp
Pspspsps: I have a secret to share. Ready?
I intensely dislike makerspaces, challenge centers, robots, STEM areas,
and various other iterations in the elementary school library.
Before any reader judges harshly my stated sentiment, please understand the following:
I ditched home economics in high school, in favor of taking industrial arts. This consisted of various hands-on projects, such as pottery and woodburning activities.
My college alma mater is Cal Poly, SLO, where the motto is “learn by doing”.
I recently led three after-school activities in the library (board games and STEM projects). Each session met one hour a day, two days a week, for four weeks.
I realize I am a sample size of one; therefore, my self-survey is statistically invalid.
My antipathy stems from my observations over the past four years in two different elementary school libraries. What I mostly observed were children from all grade levels displaying what one might call unwanted behaviors: arguing, tantrums, frustration, and disappointment accompanied by running, yelling, and generally off-task activities. What I did not observe was much teamwork, cooperation, or on-task focus.
I also didn’t see an emphasis on research, literacy skills, comprehension, or prompts for using critical thinking. Any guides with clear instructions are ignored over time, with the challenges eroding into glorified play areas.
It might just be that makerspaces are mostly relevant for academic libraries, or for older patrons and students. For example, the C’reatr Lab Makerspace in the Orbach Library at the University of California, Riverside, is described on the UCR website as follows:
“...(a) dedicated maker space open to the students, faculty, staff, and alumni of UCR. Our lab offers a wide range of resources and equipment including 3D printers, a laser engraver, Cricut machines, sewing and embroidery machines, as well as button makers. We provide an inclusive environment where individuals can work on their projects and bring their creative ideas to life.”
This maker space is not open to the public, only specific patrons who are at least old enough to attend the university.
When did the idea of makerspaces in education take hold? Kurt Salisbury and T. Philip Nichols speak to this question in their article, “School makerspaces: Beyond the hype”:
Makerspaces are places where participants (or “makers”) design or create (or “make”) projects using a variety of physical and digital tools. Popularized in 2005 with the publication of Make magazine, the concept has, in recent years, captured the imaginations of education leaders and grassroots educators who saw similarities between making and other forms of project-based learning.” (Salisbury & Nichols, 2020).
Because I object to recurring chaos and projects not based in core library skills–not the concept of learning-by-doing–I researched what might help foster successful elements of makerspaces in an elementary school setting. I especially focused on articles addressing spaces that are accessible for children for whom English is a second language and children who are struggling with emotional self-regulation and social skills. I also advocate for spaces and/or projects that are low cost in terms of budget, time, and managing behaviors.
One example I found neatly fits the criteria above, as well as meeting the desired educational outcomes:
Library staff can read two stories with students, such as fairy-tales or fables. The students then work in groups to create a storyboard of one of the two stories, their choice. This allows some autonomy for children who have challenges with participating in an assigned activity. This type of project also includes collaborative learning within a class, another foundation for success. The storyboards will have clear instructions, structure, and goals, as the format will be pre-printed and available to the students. This keeps some frustration to a minimum, both for following instructions and for engaging positively with peers. This is also a language-rich activity, and should include vocabulary words that meet a range of differentiation. Finally, the activity should include time for positive feedback from the teacher and peers.
Subsequent classes can be built upon these storyboards, such as creating models with low-cost materials, and stop-motion animation, using the digital resources provided on district-assigned iPads. An age-appropriate reflection can also be integrated. This alternative provides not only an opportunity to link back books to the project-in-process, it also provides a continuum for library staff to help students who have difficulty with transitions.
My hope is that the experiences of activities like these in the elementary school library will assist students in transitioning to “real” makerspaces in middle and high school.
Sources:
Lu, X., & Zheng, X. (2025). Efficacy of maker-centered learning method on K-12 students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology & Society, 28(1), 60–77. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48810708
Madigan, M. (2023). At the Center of Learning: School libraries foster thoughtful, independent learners with learning centers. American Libraries, 54(3/4), 36–39.
MyPBLWorks. (n.d.). The storytime channel. https://my.pblworks.org/project/storytime-channel
Pervez, A., & Galea, E. (2024). Primary schools: Spaces for children’s social and emotional learning. Psychology of Education Review, 48(1), 68–76. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsper.2024.48.1.68
Salisbury, K., & Nichols, T. P. (2020). School makerspaces: Beyond the hype. The Phi Delta Kappan, 101(8), 49–53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26977120