Paper published in EAD12 Conference. 2017. Rome. Iván Sánchez Milara, Georgi V. Georgiev, Jukka Riekki, Jani Ylioja, Mikko Pyykkönen In this research, we studied the human dimensions of experience and knowledge, confidence, motivation, and fun with regard to four technological dimensions referring to a FabLab environment: 2D and 3D design, tools and machines, prototyping with electronics, and programming. An intensive, two-week training period for high school students in digital fabrication and design was utilized as a testbed to evaluate how the participants modified their perception of the four human dimensions during the training. We identified that prototyping with electronics and programming were the most significant obstacles. In addition, the perception of acquired knowledge and confidence had increased considerably after training except for the programming domain. FabLab trainers can utilize the trainees’ perceptions on different dimensions to emphasize the specific design aspects of the activity in order to achieve the training goals. We also expect that a detailed description of the experiment setup can be useful to other researchers and practitioners while organizing activities at FabLab.

1. Human and Technological
Dimensions of Making in Fab Lab
Iván Sánchez Milara, Georgi V. Georgiev, Jukka Riekki, Jani Ylioja, Mikko Pyykkönen
14.04.2017

2. University of Oulu
Center for Ubiquitous Computing (UBICOMP)
13.4.2017 EAD12|2017 Design for NEXT2

3. University of Oulu
UBICOMP. Research Activities
Sense
Connect
Visualize
Personal Shared Public

4. University of Oulu
What is a Fab Lab?
13.4.2017EAD12|2017 Design for NEXT4

5. University of Oulu13.4.2017 EAD12|2017 Design for NEXT5
A Fab Lab (fabrication
laboratory) is a small-scale
workshop offering
(personal) digital
fabrication.
-Equipped with flexible computer-
controlled tools that are suitable for
various materials and object sizes
-GOAL: Make "almost anything“
-Born in MIT in 2000’s
FABLAB

6. University of Oulu
Fab Lab network
13.4.2017 EAD12|2017 Design for NEXT6
https://www.fablabs.io/labs

7. University of Oulu
Fab Lab for
university
students and
staff
13.4.2017 EAD12|2017 Design for NEXT7
Principles of digital fabrication
3 meters tall robot
OuluES activities

8. University of Oulu
Fab Lab for
local schools
13.4.2017 EAD12|2017 Design for NEXT8
Fablab Oulu summer training 2016
MOK weeks: Ritaharju, Myllytulli and Kastelli
http://fablab4school.fi/
http://oulu.fi/fablab

9. University of Oulu
‒ Digital fabrication -> New but emerging field
‒ Multidisciplinar learning
‒ Learn-by-doing vs instructional learning
‒ Sharing knowledge and collaboration
… “finding the most effective ways
to give the new users the
opportunity to gain a wide range of
skills in various environments and
communities with which they could
to take full advantage of all the tools
in Fab Labs”
Mikhak et al., 2002

10. University of Oulu
Fab Lab Dimensions
13.4.2017 EAD12|2017 Design for NEXT10

11. University of Oulu
Human dimensions
13.4.2017 EAD12|2017 Design for NEXT11
Experience and knowledge Confidence
Motivation Fun

12. University of Oulu
Technical dimensions
13.4.2017 EAD12|2017 Design for NEXT12
Electronics 2D / 3D design
Programming Machines and tools

13. University of Oulu
Case study
13.4.2017 EAD12|2017 Design for NEXT13

14. University of Oulu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sgIAGC0Om0

15. University of Oulu
‒ 14 High School students (14 – 18)
- 4 groups
‒ Two weeks time (7 h per day)
‒ Problem: create an alarm-robot
- Final presentation
‒ Short lecture (30 min) at the
begining of the day
- Rest of the day self-regulated work
‒ Pre-questionnaire; post
questionnaire; reflection
- Perception of participants of the different
dimensions
13.4.2017 EAD12|2017 Design for NEXT15
https://fablaboulusummertraining.wordpress.com/

16. University of Oulu
Results
13.4.2017 EAD12|2017 Design for NEXT16

17. University of Oulu
Dimensions (median)
N = 11

18. University of Oulu
Variations
Red circles indicate
statistically significant
variations
Wilcoxon signed rank test

19. University of Oulu
Dimensions (mode)

20. University of Oulu
‒ ‘Most of our expectations for the training were met. We got to do all
the things we wanted, even if they didn’t work.’
‒ ‘We haven’t had possibilities before to do programming or make
circuit boards in school or anywhere else.’
‒ ‘We’ve learnt how to use different software and gadgets like 3D
printer, laser cutter and milling machine. Also, Arduino coding was
new for the most of us.’
‒ ‘We all agree that we learnt a lot; not just about technology but
also about teamwork and working more independently without the
constant guidance of an adult.’
13.4.2017 EAD12|2017 Design for NEXT20
Feedback

21. University of Oulu
Experience and knowledge
‒ Increased in all technical aspects but
programming
‒ Specially significant increase in 2D/3D
design
- ‘3D models were hard to use and sometimes it was very
frustrating to edit the models.’
- Less support from trainers -> Easier self-exploration ->
active learning
13.4.2017 EAD12|2017 Design for NEXT21
‒ Programming more challenging for self-
learning
- Only one group managed to write all the code by
themselves
- Only 1 hour introduction to programming not enough for
children to write their own C code
- We recommend to better start with visual
programming language

22. University of Oulu
Confidence
‒ Increase in 2D/3D design and utilization
of machines:
- Digital fabrication increases confidence as appealing and
functional prototypes can be built more quickly in
comparison to other methods (Blikstein, 2013; Analytis et
al., 2017)
13.4.2017 EAD12|2017 Design for NEXT22
‒ Although they have increased their
knowledge in electronics confidence has
not changed
- Challenge subject
- While they get new knowledge, they are more aware of
their limitations
- We recommend to better start with very simple
ciruits, with few components

23. University of Oulu
Perceived difficulty level
13.4.2017 EAD12|2017 Design for NEXT23

24. University of Oulu
Motivation
‒ High median values in all technical
dimensions (4 or 5)
‒ Non-significant decrease of motivation in
programming
- Need to confirm in future experiments
- They thought they have some skills in programming
- When the participants realized that programming was
more challenging than that they initially expected, the
motivation decreased.
13.4.2017 EAD12|2017 Design for NEXT24
‘But now that we know what
we are able to do here we will
definitively come back.’

25. University of Oulu
Fun
‒ Most enjoyable technical dimensions:
machines and electronics
- Tangible work vs software design tools
- Tangible interaction has often been linked to an improved
user experience in relevant literature, which in this special
issue is described under the umbrella term of ‘fun’
(Zaman et al., 2016)
- We recommend orienting tangible activities to build
a concrete item quickly, and through successive
iterations,
‒ The qualitative analysis shows that the
difficulty of the tasks should not be
negatively correlated with enjoyment
- ‘3D-modelling was punishing, but fun’
13.4.2017 EAD12|2017 Design for NEXT25

26. University of Oulu
‒ Two-week summer training period in which pupils
(14 -18) developed their own robot gadget
‒ We propose 4 technological dimensions and 4
human dimensions
- Relations among dimensions should be studied further
- Understanding these relations is an starting point to create a
framework to help instructors to create activities at Fab Lab.
‒ We ordered the technical dimension based on
perceived difficulty by students
- Programming the most difficult while 2D/3D design the easiest
‒ We will develop further studies by scaling up the
courses and participation.
- This will include different modes of delivery, different audiences,
and different time-frames, thereby improving the making activities
based on the feedback and findings of the current study.
13.4.2017 EAD12|2017 Design for NEXT26
Conclusions

27. University of Oulu
THANKS!!
Grazie!
ivan.sanchez@oulu.fi
13.4.2017EAD12|2017 Design for NEXT27