Playing with others and a Makey Makey board

Our emergent group making music by forming a human circuit with the Makey Makey breakout board, bananas, a 3D printed elephant, and a computer.

Makey Makey is a breakout board that, when connected to a computer via a USB cable, can act as a powerful tool for exploring conductivity and transforming everyday items into tangible interfaces that can interact with the computer screen. Exploring the Makey Makey in the MILL makerspace together with the other course participants was plainly fun.

This time, I took a much more communal approach to making, something that perhaps is not my first inclination when getting started with a project. This shifted how projects were presented on social media: while previously projects took center stage in the photographs (see photo left), this time the smiling group was the focus of the picture (see photo right). The switch in going about making also highlighted ways of thinking about being in the world that seemed to be backgrounded through other approaches.

My first learning companion in this activity became the friendly blue 3D printed elephant that was laying on the table. I picked it up and taped conductive tape to its belly and trunk. My idea was to make interactions playful and to make screen movement happen by completing a circuit with my hand wrapped around it's belly and the elephant's trunk touching a conductive surface connected to the circuit. I walked around the table holding my character, looking for a project I could jump in on.

Someone left a keyboard attached to a Makey Makey on the table. I tried to connect to it. When it did not work, I did not do what I paused and turned away from my usual approach: tinkering with the materials to understand how it works. Instead I turned to the person next to me to ask for help. They happily showed me how to connect to make the keyboard project sound. I wonder how much of asking for help and putting others into a position of helping plays into being a valued part of a community.

With my new knowledge of how to make it work, I changed places and moved to the other end of the table, where two participants were working together on a banana piano. I placed my elephant next to their project and stepped away to see what happened. Almost immediately, one of them picked up the elephant and integrated it into their explorations. After some eye-contact and exchange of smiles, we formed a human circuit. One person held the ground, the other the elephant and we became connected through the person in the center. All three of us had a blast trying to make songs on the bongos. Our laughter seemed to attract others who watch us and asked questions. This is when the picture above was taken.

Taking a different, more social, approach to learning and material exploration at this point of the course seemed to highlight playing much more than any of my prior explorations. Much less serious and directed, this change of doing felt much more trusting in the space, the community, and the material and made me think about the kinds of things that can be missed when approaching making the same way again and again. Switching things up, bringing in new aspects, backgrounding others seemed to highlight ways of getting to know the world and being in the world with other that seemed previously not accessible.

New Materialism: A very Quick Exploration

My e-textiles project: a soft reading light. 

This week was not the first time I created an electronic textile project. I made the project above out of four felt pieces, conductive thread, an LED and a battery pack. To avoid the thread from showing on the felted material, I sew it slightly under the surface of the yellow material. As the material was not very thick, it was still possible to see the dark silver colored thread beneath the surface, which created an interesting but unwanted visual. So, instead of sewing the purple felted piece on the other side of the project, to create a pocket, I added the rose colored felt circle on top of the yellow piece. While I initially intended to cut out a few additional circles to add more color to the project, I was charmed by the character that emerged out of the simple two-color combination. – I left the piece as is. 

Inspired by Taylor and Ivinson (2013) call for a focus on human and non-human bodies within education, this weeks' class was all about New Materialism. New Materialism is a theory and philosophy that rejects the subject/object split and suggests that matter is entangled and “conditioned by culture, history, and place” (Taylor and Ivinson, 2013).  In all of this entanglement of matter, knowledge is considered meaning-making within matter and cannot be separated from it (a key to accepting this is the fact that everyone and everything has a body. 

This introduces the curious idea about agency, which, contrary to a humanist perspective that ascribes agency to people, is not owned by anyone or anything. In New Materialism, agency comes about in uncertain ways through the way in which matter intra-acts (again action within). Here, it seems helpful to imagine the tiny weeny particles we are all made up of and when zooming in closely it is really hard to see where one matter ends and another begins. So New Materialism suggests that there are no definite boundaries between human and non-human, or human and human, or non-human and non-human matter. The boundaries are made are being made all the time as action unfolds. 

This is exactly why Taylor and Ivinson (2013) want us to question "which matter matters in educational situations". When we realize and remember that boundaries (and materials that catch norms and objective them, i.e., making it as if they are not to be questioned matter of facts) are created, we not only get a whole new meaning of what objectivity is, but we can also start asking how the boundaries are being created and how conditions that are called for by matter around us can be broken out of. This is huge and really productive for education and especially for maker education, because it means that (a) we can empower children by letting them explore and discover how they can make and un-make the matter around them (e.g., through toy-hacking, electronic take-apart tables, digital remixing, 3D printing camps, laser-cutter workshops), and (b) we can make better choices about how to design equitable, just, and ethical learning environments. 

One really neat example of a powerful design for learning that can bring about new ways for making and unmaking identities and agency in STEM fields are e-textiles, electronic toolkits that make use of needle and conductive thread to create soft electronic circuits that could be sewn into any fabric-based material. In fact, Buchholz, Shively, Pappler, & Wohlwend (2014) found that use of e-textiles materials “ruptured traditional gender scripts around electronics and computing”. The authors explain that the term gendered scripts refers to the uses with and access to materials that call for conducting recognizable and socialized gendered practice (e.g., in dyads of one boy and one girl, girls performed hands-on leadership roles in the e-textiles project). Buchholz et al. (2014) call to take on responsibility for the created gendered scripts/histories of materials, and suggest that introducing changes to materials can increase leadership opportunities for women in STEM. They warn against “cultural deficit model”, and call for educational STEM materials that allow performance of electronics practices and leadership roles in many ways.

As for my e-textiles project, these ideas were not as powerful. However, there are two simple intra-actions that seem worth pointing out. The most obvious of them is perhaps the way the idea of a soft reading light came about. When getting the project ready to photograph for this blog post, the kitchen table was cluttered with books, papers, and a broken night-stand lamp that I have been meaning to repair. When resting the piece on a book, I noticed that it illuminated the letters, and I thought that it was nice to frame the piece through this "useful" angle. The broken lamp in the periphery seemed to have added the theme of reading in the dark. Another intra-action that seems interesting to point out is the way the thread, the felt, and my wish to hide the thread lead to placing the rose colored piece of felt on-top of the yellow piece. This lead to reimagining the character of the project and reassessing the direction the project would take. 

Thinking with New Materialism as compass for design opens up new ways of thinking with matter around us, and perhaps new understanding of what it means to be a learner. I think that this theory can be a productive way to reclaiming power over one's own actions and making much more informed decisions in terms of the actions opened up or denied to youth. 

Tinkering with a Motor

Timelaps video of my Scribble Bot

Crafting this slow moving Scribble Bot was an exploration of materials and motion. Immediately drawn to the shiny solver tin, I selected tape and paper materials that would match with the silver color nicely. Getting the motor to run without the additional materials was easy, add on lead to the positive side of the battery and the other lead to the negative side of the battery. Depending on which lead you add where, the motor spins in a different direction. For my purposes, it did not matter in which direction the motor would spin.

The tip of the motor started rotating, giving me immediate feedback that what I had done was correct. Although I made motors spin many times before, I felt somewhat gratified. The technology told me I was treating it like it should. My approach to creating the rest of the Scribble Bot was through tinkering with the materials I selected. 

Tinkering is a playful, experimental, iterative, and bottom up way of learning. Tinkering can foster important ways for children to grow and educate their creativity and agility in preparation to recognize and make disappear future challenges adults cannot anticipate while educating children (Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013). When thinking about designing contexts for tinkerability, Resnick & Rosenbaum (2013) reflected on 6 key aspects: emphasizing process over product, setting themes not challenges, highlighting diverse examples, tinkering with space, encouraging engagement with people not just material, combining diving in with stepping back.

While for me, these aspects seemed to have played a role in how I approached the design of the Scribble Bot, it is challenging to cleanly differentiate one aspect from another. Nevertheless, I am exploring my Scribble Bot building activity through these aspects to better understand the overlaps.

Emphasizing process over product – Form the beginning I knew that this Scribble Bot is going to have to use a motor and that it should move. Since there was a clear goal to the task, I tried to focus my explorations on the process of getting there. In the beginning I took notes, made scribbles, and even took pictures of the kinds of speed-bumps I encountered, e.g., avoiding short circuits when battery and tin can touch, or balancing the tin can so that the motor could spin a pipe cleaner. However, these challenges, while seeming to slow down my process overall, seemed to drive my project forward and into the shape it ended up being.

Setting themes not challenges – The activity was framed as an exploratory task. Although the task of creating a self-moving Scribble Bot was in the back of my mind, working with discarded and everyday maker materials seemed to help lower the feeling of having to get it down. There were so many different ways of getting it down, the theme of self-moving creature was open ended for anyone to interpret. 

Highlighting diverse examples & encouraging engagement with people not just material – We started creating the Scribble Bots together at the Make Innovate Learn Lab (see also my site description   and 360° pictures of the MILL Makerspace). Everyone had their own approach. One person made the tip of the motor touch the table for the Scribble Bot to rapidly spin in circles, another person attached a string and a pen to the tip of the motor and let it dangle over a piece of paper to create abstract looking imagery. Seeing everyone's approaches unfold alongside my own was encouraging and helpful. While at first I did not know how to translate the motor's motion to the tin, I learned from watching and interacting with others how to unbalance the motor (in theory). It required some trickery, watching other projects, and talking with others to make it work.

Tinkering with space – Creating the Scribble Bot required some trickery, watching other projects, and talking with others to make it work. The material arrangement on the table supported the seeing of other projects and interacting with people. For example, the hot-glue gun was positioned at the opposite end of the table. To attach the popsicle sticks to my tin, I walked over and saw another person's project in action. The goodly eyes another person had left on the table invited me to attach eyes to my Scribble Bot. 

Combining diving in with stepping back – I could not finish my robot at the Make Innovate Learn Lab, and planned to continue working with it another day from my office. Revisiting the project after a few days, I turned it on and did not see the tin moving at all. After watching it for some time, I noticed that it was moving - just very slowly. I took a timelapse video (see above) to capture the Scribble Bot's slow motion. 

References

Reading Glassie's Folk Housing in Middle Virginia using Fröbel's Kindergarten Gift

This week, two classes I am taking this semester converged in interesting ways. In Constructionism our task was to explore one of Fröbel's gifts. My gift was number 6, a square shaped box containing wooden blocks that can be explored through various spatial and pattern arrangments. Gift 6 is an extension of Gift 4 and 5, which all represent simple play things that are intended to foster a child's creativity. The solid parts teach relativity, metamorphosis, and unity: as the child assembles different shapes out of the parts, she notices that various formations can be created our of the same building blocks (Brosterman, 1997).

For my Material Culture course we are reading one book each week. This week, we read Henry Glassie's work on Folk Housing in Middle Virginia, in which he is presenting a structural analysis of architectural structures. In short, Glassie is drawing on semiotics and a language metaphor for the study of materials by suggesting that there is a certain grammar that underlies the architectural competence of the builders. In his analysis Glassie presented specific rule for building deduced from close observations. The rules are detailed and it is at times challenging to imagine the way they represent themselves in buildings and how some rules seem to be presented as dependent one others or necessarily have other rules follow them.

To better understand Glassie's structural analysis, I used Fröbel's Gift 6 as a way to layout the rules on my kitchen table. By making the rules visible and tangible, I was able to better connect to Glassie's analysis. Here is a picture essay that lays out the main rules using the building blocks in Fröbel's gift 6:

I laid out an approximation of the scale of the basic shapes.

I used base shape "X" to start my structure. To extend my base shape built up in 3 dimensions by treading the shape equally, meaning that I did not change the base shape as I built upwards. 

 I explored rules of massing and piercing, by adding windows to my 1 story tall structure

Here a backward expansion is shown, to illustrate the way the structure would be pierces to create an opening between the first and second base shape. 

I added roofing onto the shape in order to further extend upwards.

This is the final presentation of the rules combined. 

Lastly, I tried to construct a Type 1 house with the building blocks of Fröbel's Gift 6. It was actually quite complicated to construct the house with the materials available, and I had to employ mathematical reasoning related to geometry and fractions to make this simple structure.

This exploration helped me appreciate the value of the gifts in a practical way beyond early childhood education. The shapes themselves made it possible for me to approach complex analysis of a field that I am new to in more concrete ways. I think that it would be wonderful to include more concrete, yet simple tools like the Fröbel's gifts throughout educations rather than only during Kindergarten and doctoral studies. 

Making a Paper Circuit

This is the paper circuit I made at the IU School of Education MILL Makerspace during the Constructionism course last week. It was a super quick exploration. Among 3D printed figures, LED lights, conductive tape (copper and silver), and coin-cell batteries, colorful index cards were laying on the table, ready to be used. I was standing close to the index cards and their colors seemed fun to work with. I picked them up and started to shift them around. 

Recently, I have been exploring fabric manipulation techniques and the kinds of implicit and explicit mathematics concepts embedded in different techniques. One of my favorite shapes of the origami structures I created is the pinwheel. So, I started out my paper explorations with the basic shapes of this design and the idea to create a pattern that integrates the circuit materials (i.e., conductive tape, LED, and coin-cell battery) to be minimally visible as possible, and that the interactions with the circuit (i.e., the switch) would be integrated in the pinwheel design. 

Although I've made circuits of different materials and level of complexities before, the projects I set out within the minimal constraints of the instructions that were provided was much more complex than I had anticipated. On a small and super fast scale I experienced the kind of playful and imaginative spiraling process that youth at the computer clubhouses are theorized to experience (Rusk, Resnick, & Cooke, 2009). The quick project had me thinking about shapes, angles, and dimensional constructions long after leaving the makerspace, and here are some of things that stood out to me in hindsight:

• Similar to Papert and Harel's (1991) description of the painter-programmer who was guided by colors and shapes in how meaning was constructed, I listened to the paper structure and let it guide my placement of the circuit and conductive tape. The material itself was sturdy enough to keep in place, while flexible enough to allow me to wind the LED and the conductive tape through the construction. While I started with an idea, I did not know how I would eventually get to the final design. The folded paper and the way I arranged the pieces helped guide the way the tape was placed (e.g., when to have the tape on the front or back side) and where to position the switch (e.g., on one of the folded corners). It was interesting to see all aspects of the design interconnecting in the process of making. The way the circuit was be placed and could be interacted with was informed by the overall form the paper was folded into. 

• The windmill design is constructed out of 8 equally shaped square pieces of paper. Half of the squares make up the base. The four remaining pieces are folded into the shapes that should construct the pinwheel. First, they are folded diagonally to create a triangle. I remembered that one of the points of the triangle needed to be folded up. What I did not remember was which point needed to be folded. Looking at my finished paper circuit design, I knew something was not exactly pinwheel-y about it. Writing this post and juxtaposing the picture of my paper circuit and the picture of my fabric pinwheel that revealed the trick. Since the fold should be visible, it matters which point is folded up! Documenting my process, a-ha moments, and overall project work on the initially blank canvas allowed me to reflect on my design activity and to make new connections (Chapman, 2009). 

• When making my circuit, I was not alone. I crafted and debugged along all of the other course participants who were working on their own interpretations of the assignment. One of the other participants, Joey, created a layered card design. What stood out in her design was how she used the bendable properties of the conductive tape to twist the paper into waves that looked like the branches of a tree. I only recognized what she had been working on after both of us had finished when we chatted, took pictures, and explored each others' projects. This interaction made me reflect about my own process, and how individualized my approach had been until the very last minutes of the time spent at the makerspace. Staying longer in the creative environment of the makerspace might have helped elaborate these initial seeds of joining in and collaborating that so important for constructionist learning environments (e.g., Rusk, Resnick, & Cooke, 2009). I wonder what could have become of both of our projects if we had teamed up or worked off of each other's ideas. 

References

• Chapman, R. (2009). Encouraging Peer Sharing: Learning Reflections in a Community of Designers. The computer clubhouse: Constructionism and creativity in youth communities, 81-89
• Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36, 1-11.
• Rusk, N., Resnick, M., & Cooke, S. (2009). Origins and guiding principles of the computer clubhouse. The computer clubhouse: Constructionism and creativity in youth communities, 17-25.

Learning in Action at the Make Innovate Learn Lab (MILL)

 

The right and the left side of the Make Innovate Learn Lab (MILL)

The Make Innovate Learn Lab (MILL) is a makerspaces in the School of Education at Indiana University that recently opened its doors to students, staff, faculty and anyone interested in exploring learning through making. The MILL is located in the second floor of the Wright Education building on campus, on the far end of the corridor that is right to the graduate office. With all glass walls transparently displaying the colorful materials and high- and low-tech tools, the sun-lit space starkly contrasts to the gray walls and closed doors of the rooms that lay in close vicinity. 

The walls that formally separated two classrooms were torn down to create the long rectangular space that is now the MILL. The entrance to the space faces a carmine colored pillar that visually remind of the walls that once separated the space. The pillar, featuring a MILL logo humbly constructed from cardboard and pegboard with space for storage, visually and rhythmically divides the space into two main areas that are approximately of the equal size.

To the right side of the door, 3D prints and toy-hacks are facing out into the hallway through the glass wall. In front of the wall also parks a cart that holds a screen for sharing projects and a whiteboard jotting down project ideas. At the far end of the room is a sideboard that holds four 3D printers. When I am in the space, they are cheerfully buzzing in their high-pitch low-pitch ways, finishing to print what seems to me a larger scale project. Above the printers, pegboard lines the wall with storage spaces for 3D printer filament and tools, presenting a colorful conglomerate of possibilities for making. While on the outside, red on the inside, below the sideboard are mobile storage carts that can be pulled out and re-purposed for additional workspace. The natural daylight makes the colors of the tape, thread, beads, and bins of toys shine brighter than a rainbow. They are positions between the two windows of the space. Cardboard boxes are lining the floor at the left most corner of the right side of the space. A note with a smiley face suggests that the boxes are saved for a project. Electrical plugs dangle from the ceiling, conveniently just about the workshop table that is filled with plastic wrapper, aluminum foil, play-dough, and boxes filled with blue and magenta colored kinetic sand.

Left to the carmine colored pillar is another mobile storage unit, stocked with projects in progress and books on gaming. Next to the cart are two cushioned armchairs that call for hanging out and chatting about projects. The left side of the room seemingly mirrors the right side. The wall between the windows here is also furnished with pegboard. However, different tools adorn this wall, including a clock. Also chairs are stacked up here, and e-fashion projects are presented in front of them. The sideboard hosts a sink and first aid kit, lots of workspace, and a computer to control the laser cutter that is positioned next to the glass wall on a mobile storage cart with vertical compartments for the laser cutter materials. The laser cutter is connected to a ventilation system, which, when turned on, can easily take over the auditory space of the left side of the room. Next to the laser cutter is a table that showcases diverse projects created with the laser cutter, and paper snowflakes representing patterns in the shape of popular media characters that were created with the laser cutter decorate the glass wall on this side of the space. In the center of this side of the space is a table with a paper-roller coaster model.

As my observations throughout the space continue, the division of the MILL space into two main areas as represented above does not hold up in practice. While we intentionally designed for this mobility, it is nice to see it happen in practice. To prepare the upcoming workshop, Justin moved the tables so as to leave room for exploring 3D printers, I re-purposed a cabinet into a rotating desk, one standing desk became the workshop table for a paper roller coaster model, and the sideboard area next to the sink was utilized for constructing the dinosaur model.

The idea of flexibility of the space was a code design principle that drove the design of the MILL space. This meant that furniture, materials, and tools would be (1) mobile to encourage movement and project driven arrangement of work spaces; (2) visible to support transparent access to materials and projects for making; (3) pliable to encourage changes in the space and to distribute understanding about making into the arrangement of the space. The design principle of flexibility was intended to break down barriers and thresholds for using the tools and materials of the MILL, to dream up projects, and to be inspired by materials. Taking a bath in the materials and riding their wave of creativity, was considered similar to the intuitive browsing of the Internet, letting one article lead to the next and the next and the next, without knowing where one will end up. For my observations at the makerspace, I particularly focused on projects and interests as well as implicit values of the learning community around the space.

Projects and Interests

A dinosaur model laser cut by Roosevelt

A Laser-Cut Dinosaur Model – As I pass the first glass panels, the mentor of the space, Justin is working with Roosevelt  an Instructional Systems Technology (IST) doctoral student, at the laser cutter corner. Unlike my exception that Roosevelt created the model for an instructional design related to fossils, Justin clarifies that Roosevelt saw the physical model in the space a few days ago and wanted to recreate it for his personal pleasure. Roosevelt nodded and smiled. This was Roosevelt's first project with the laser cutter, and a way for him to learn how to use the tool by creating a project that he personally cared for. Roosevelt could re-create the dinosaur model by using the digital model of the project that was stored in the computer that was connected to the laser cutter. In the MILL, everyone who is laser cutting a project is requested to share a copy of their files to this folder. This creates a digital record of all the laser-cut project created at the MILL and allows anyone to appropriate and re-mix projects. Before departing, Roosevelt placed the cut-out pieces of a dinosaur model into a Ziploc bag. He is planning to assemble the project at home. What is left in the space are the outlines of the pieces in the plywood material on one of the mobile carts of the space. At closer look around this area, a second set of the dinosaur model lays disassembled next to the sink. Roosevelt and Justin cut out two projects, one for Roosevelt to take home, and one to remain in the MILL to inspire other makers. Justin explains that this is a common practice to provide tangible examples of what is possible to make for people who are not yet familiar with the high- and low-tech tools available in the space.

A 3D Printed Steady Cam – As Justin is preparing the upcoming tour and workshop, Alice, an undergraduate student majoring in International Studies and minoring in Education, is entering the space, heading straight to the 3D printers. She collects prints from all three large 3D printers, and as she sits down at the table across from me, she explains that she will put the pieces together to create a steady cam case. Looking like she knows exactly what she is doing, she carefully removes the supporting structure the prints came with from each individual piece using a carpet knife and a cutting board. Alex tells me about the high price for store bought steady cams, and the benefits of her being able to use the 3D printer. For her, the benefits are not just economically motivated, she also shares her excitement about learning to use the technology and being part of a community that re-mixes and appropriates materials and artifacts. 

Alice: Is there a way to reuse some of the mis-prints? 

Justin: Yes, there are some people that are looking into remaking them into filament, but we have not really thought about that yet. 

Going into technical details, Justin explained that one of the pieces of Alice's steady cam project did not print properly. He offers to reprint that piece. Since the 3D printer takes long to print the missing piece, they agree that Alice will come back the next day to pick up her project. In the background the 3d printer sounds are filling the room, reprinting the piece, as she leaves the room. While Justin does not want the MILL to turn into a print shop, like the one available at the Indiana University Wells Library (URL), he tells me that he does want to facilitate people to get projects started. For example, when the tour and the workshop are about to start, Laura, another undergraduate student, entered the MILL to start a 3D print. Justin suggested for her to return another time as this would be the first time for Laura to use the 3D printer. Justin jots her name and the time she wants to return onto a sticky note and returns to preparing the workshop. 

A 3D printed spherical model

3D Printed Model of Energy Flow – As Henriette, the first workshop participants enters the space, she immediately sits down at the large table across from me. She starts to play with the Kinetic Sand that Justin played out for workshop participants. She inquires about a model she started printing in the space some time ago. Justin approaches the table with a bright orange spherical structure in his hand. The sphere has an inner and an outer spiral. Carefully, Henriette picks it up, bouncing and bending the model in her hand. Henriette explained that the orange sphere is for her Tai Chi instructor, and elaborated: 

Henriette: In Tai Chi when someone gives you a force you try to unbalance them. [This model] gives humans a visualization of movement and energy.

Similar to the way Roosevelt used the digital model someone else shared on the MILL laser cutter computer, Henriette downloaded the model from Thingyverse, an platform of makers to share their digital designs intended for 3D printing.

Anecdotal Maker Stories – As all three participants joined in and the tour of the space can begin, Justin invited the participants to take a look around. As they stop their explorations in front of the table that displays laser-cutter projects, Justin picks up a complicated looking geometrical structure, in which elliptical, flat shapes are hinged into another to create a three dimensional object. Justin is telling the story of the maker of the structure. 

Justin: This was made by an art education student who came in with a vision that he had in his head of making a construction since he has been in high school. Seeing the material was an important part of the making too.

This story highlighted the potential of the MILL to make complicated ideas a reality. He highlights the role of tinkering with tools and materials around an idea and how the tangible exploration of an idea can yield interesting results, as the construction. Attentively listening, this sparks a story in one of the workshop participants. The participants tells about creating a puppet of a mega pumpkin character that her son developed, and about how complicated it was to calculate the spherical shape of the character's head. This story highlights another dimension of making: material tinkering can represent the inherent complexities of seemingly simple surfaces and shapes. 

While these are only a few projects that I learned during a three hour stay at the MILL, the projects give testimony to the wide variety of projects created at the MILL that make use of the digital fabrication tools alone. Without having documented the kinds of projects that make use of materials at the intersection of high- and low-tech the three projects represent the potential of the space only 4 month into its inauguration. What is interesting is that the projects were based on personal interests, which is probably true for most of the projects created at the MILL. Roosevelt's project is for home use, perhaps to decorative purposes, Alice's project serves the purpose for creating video images that may facilitate the creation of other creative projects, Henriette's project is for instructional purposes, illustrating energy flow to her Tai Chi students, and the art education student realize a long-term vision. What stands out is that only the last project is directly connected to the makers' professional context, and that they were created based on individual interests rather than community or group interests. While the highlighted projects are not representative of all of the projects created at the MILL, they leaves me to wonder what kind of collaborative projects could be created for the MILL.

Learning Community and Values

While there is no official leadership hierarchy at the MILL, an implicit and informal understanding that those with experience of the tools can start working independently, while others need to go through training with Justin. His role of workshop facilitator is expanded into the role of a mentor and designer, helping people to get started with projects that help them learn how to use the tools, to facilitate continuous use, and to show off the possibilities of the space. The trajectories for leveling up in the space, e.g., from newcomer to independent MILL maker, are still forming and are beginning to formalize. For example, Justin recently created a sign that explains important items for successfully using the laser cutter, is in the process of developing a sign-up process, and is constantly thinking about the kinds of tools and materials needed in the space. Through my observations I observed other values that characterize how learning is facilitated at the MILL: 

• The space is constantly changing – An initial look at the MILL space with its tools and materials suggests two distinct areas that may be shaped by the historic division of the space and the dominant digital fabrication tools positioned at opposite ends of the space (laser cutter and 3D printer). A closer observation of the space in use makes visible that there are no fixed areas and that makers make use of the flexibility that was designed into the space, its tools, and furniture. 
• Projects define the spatial arrangement – As much as the space is in motion, projects suggest the way the space unfolds. While makers planfully arrange the space for their purposes (e.g., Justin placing Kinetic Sand onto tables) workstations also evolve through an expanding motion as projects progress (e.g., Roosevelt placing the second dinosaur model next to the sink), seemingly lagging just behind projects.
• Remixing and appropriation are encouraged practices – The suggested norm of sharing digital and physical copies of projects is intended to inspire others to see what is possible with the digital fabrication tools and to easily recreate projects or build on previously done projects. This seems to reduce the threshold for getting started and to initiate a culture of sharing throughout the space.
• Projects are interest-driven jumping off points – Small personally motivated projects like the 3D printed steady cam or the laser cut dinosaur model are ways for people to learn how to use the tools, to be empowered and inspired to come back and to make something else.
• Distributed collaboration – Through the norm of sharing of digital files, tangible projects, and anecdotal maker stories in an effort to encourage making among visitors, a kind of collaboration is facilitated that is distributed across time and people. Rather than makers having to be in the space to share their creations, others can see and touch their creations and are presented with pathways to build on the work of others.

Design Ideas for the MILL
My observations at the MILL inspired a few ideas for the continues development of the makerspace:

Creating a community project for the MILL could be a way to bring collaborative making into the makerspace. The project could remain at the MILL and vvisualize the potential of the tools and demonstrate the vast variety of individual projects done at the space, further highlighting interest-driven, material-oriented, and distributed learning at the space.

Creating a simple entry survey to capture the initial motivations and exceptions of people to use the MILL that would be followed up with another survey to compare and contrast experiences. This could help capture learning stories that were ignited by the MILL. These kind of stories seem to be characteristically important for the makerspace, presented when sharing successes and failures of making. The stories can present valuable insight about future development of the space and the kinds of materials and tools to provide and stock up on. The entry survey could be expanded by a sign-in survey for capturing demographics and tracking usage of the space over time.