Designing Seamless Learning Activities for School Visitors in the Context of Fab Lab Oulu

  • Jari LaruEmail author
  • Essi Vuopala
  • Megumi Iwata
  • Kati Pitkänen
  • Ivan Sanchez
  • Antti Mäntymäki
  • Markus Packalen
  • Jussi Näykki
Part of the Lecture Notes in Educational Technology book series (LNET)


Maker culture has expanded from its traditional niches (people with an interest in computers, programming and the digital world in general) to other, more general fields such as education, business and government. However, “despite the interest in the Maker Movement and its connection to formal and informal education, there has been little research concerning the direction it is taking, the opportunities it could present for education, and why” (Papavlasopoulou in Entertainment Computing 18, 57–78, 2017). In this chapter, we developed a pedagogical framework for seamless learning in Fab Lab activities based on the multiple levels of interactivity that different tools, activities and the contexts enable. The aim is to use age-appropriate activities and appropriate tools, as suggested by Blikstein (FabLab: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors. Transcript, Bielefeld, Germany, pp. 173–180, 2013). In this chapter, we introduce the theoretical principles of the framework—computational thinking, computational making and design-driven education—as a model to teach twenty-first-century skills. We also illustrate the pedagogical principles with a case study in a primary school (K-12) as an example of designing integrated educational activities to align with the maker activities being performed in the Fab Lab context.


  1. ATC21S. (n.d.). 21st century skills. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne. Retrieved from
  2. Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54. Scholar
  3. Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23.Google Scholar
  4. Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of making in science education. Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 75–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Binkley, M., Erstad, O, Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. E. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Dordrecht, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLab: Of machines, makers and inventors (pp. 173–180). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.Google Scholar
  7. Blikstein, P., Kabayadondo, Z., Martin, A., & Fields, D. (2017). An assessment instrument of technological literacies in makerspaces and FabLabs. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(1), 149–175. Scholar
  8. Blikstein, P., & Krannich, D. (2013). The makers’ movement and FabLabs in education: Experiences, technologies, and research. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 613–616). ACM.
  9. Colegrove, T. (2013). Editorial board thoughts: Libraries as makerspace? Information Technology and Libraries (Online), 32(1), 2. Scholar
  10. Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Board of international research in design. Berlin: Brikhäuser.Google Scholar
  11. Denning, P. J., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (2009). The profession of IT computing: The fourth great domain of science. Communications of the ACM, 52(9), 27–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations, 7(3), 11–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Union. (2006). Recommendation of the European parliament and of the council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning (2006/962/EC). Brussels. Retrieved from
  14. Fishman, B., Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43–76. Retrieved from Scholar
  15. Georgiev, G. V., Sánchez, I., & Ferreira, D. (2017, April). A framework for capturing creativity in digital fabrication. Paper presented at the 12th European Academy of Design Conference (EAD12), Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  16. Gershenfeld, N. (2012). How to make almost anything: The digital fabrication revolution. Foreign Affairs, 91, 43.Google Scholar
  17. Gomoll, A., Keune, A., & Peppler, K. (2015). Flexibility to learn: Material artifacts in makerspaces. Retrieved from
  18. Griffin, P. E., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Dordrecht, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. Scholar
  20. Hakkarainen, K., Mielonen, S., Raami, A., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2003). Designin kautta oppiminen [Learning through design]. In Jyväskylän Yliopisto, POLUT, TaiKin Medialaboratorio, Virtuaaliyliopisto, & Opetusministeriö. Retrieved from
  21. Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The Maker Movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504. Scholar
  22. Hargrove, R. (2012). Fostering creativity in the design studio: A framework towards effective pedagogical practices. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 10(3), 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heikkilä, A-S., Vuopala, E., & Leinonen, T. (2017) Design-driven education in primary and secondary school contexts. A qualitative study on teachers’ conceptions on designing. Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 26(4), 471–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hsu, Y. C., Baldwin, S., & Ching, Y. H. (2017). Learning through making and maker education. TechTrends. Retrieved from Scholar
  25. Iwata, M., Pitkänen, K., & Laru, J. (2017, April). Learning 21st century skills in the context of Fab Lab. Manuscript. Submitted.Google Scholar
  26. Lam, R. J., Wong, L. H., Gaydos, M., Huang, J. S., Seah, L. H., Tan, M., … & Sandoval, W. (2016). Designing learning contexts using student-generated ideas. In 12th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2016), Singapore, 20–24 June 2016.Google Scholar
  27. Lau, K., Ng, M., & Lee, P. (2009). Rethinking the creativity training in design education: A study of creative thinking tools for facilitating creativity development of design students. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 8(1), 71–84. Scholar
  28. Leponiemi, T., Virtanen, S., & Rasinen, A. (2012). Design and assessment in technology education—case: The “Birdhouse Band” Project. In T. Ginner, J. Hallström, & M. Hultén (Eds.), Technology education in the 21st century (pp. 460–467). Linköping: Linköping University, CETIS, KTH.Google Scholar
  29. Looi, C. K., Seow, P., Zhang, B., So, H. J., Chen, W., & Wong, L. H. (2010). Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 154–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the Maker Movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), 30–39.
  31. Milara, I. S., Georgiev, G. V., Riekki, J., Ylioja, J., & Pyykkönen, M. (2017). Human and technological dimensions of making in FabLab. The Design Journal, 20(supp. 1), S1080–S1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nelson, H., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world. New Jersey: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  33. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Definition and selection of key competencies—Executive summary. Retrieved from the OECD website at:
  34. Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2017). Empirical studies on the Maker Movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review. Entertainment Computing, 18, 57–78. Scholar
  35. Pitkänen, K. (2017). Learning computational thinking and 21st century skills in the context of Fab Lab. Bachelor’s Thesis. Faculty of Education, University of Oulu, Finland.Google Scholar
  36. Partnership for 21st Century Learning (2015). P 21 framework definitions. Retrieved from
  37. Rode, J. A., Weibert, A., Marshall, A., Aal, K., von Rekowski, T., El Mimouni, H., & Booker, J. (2015). From computational thinking to computational making. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 239–250). ACM.Google Scholar
  38. Rolling, J. H. (2016). Reinventing the STEAM engine for art + design education. Art Education, 69(4), 4–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sánchez, I., Georgiev, G. V., Riekki, J., Ylioja, J., & Pyykkönen, M. (2017, April). Human and technological dimensions of making in FabLab. Paper presented at the 12th European Academy of Design Conference (EAD12), Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  40. Tan, V., & Peppler, K (2015). Creative design process in making electronic textiles. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children.Google Scholar
  41. The College Board. (2013). AP computer science principles draft curriculum framework. New York, NY: College Board. Retrieved from
  42. Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (2014). Making and tinkering: A review of the literature. National Research Council Committee on Out of School Time STEM (pp. 1–55).Google Scholar
  43. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Walter-Herrmann, W. H., & Buching, B. (2014). Notes on FabLabs. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLab: Of machines, makers and inventors (pp. 9–23). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.Google Scholar
  45. Wilson, A., & Moffat, D. C. (2010). Evaluating Scratch to introduce younger schoolchildren to programming. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Psychology of Programming Interest Group (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid). Leganés, Spain.Google Scholar
  46. Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wong, L.H. (2016). Seamless learning: Idea generation from and for cross-contextual learning processes. In Lam, R. J., Wong, L. H., Gaydos, M., Huang, J. S., Seah, L. H., Tan, M., … & Sandoval, W. (2016), Designing learning contexts using student-generated ideas. 12th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2016), Singapore, 20–24 June 2016.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jari Laru
    • 1
    Email author
  • Essi Vuopala
    • 1
  • Megumi Iwata
    • 1
  • Kati Pitkänen
    • 1
  • Ivan Sanchez
    • 2
  • Antti Mäntymäki
    • 2
  • Markus Packalen
    • 3
  • Jussi Näykki
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of OuluOuluFinland
  2. 2.Center for Ubiquitous ComputingUniversity of OuluOuluFinland
  3. 3.Rajakylä Primary SchoolCity of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations