top of page

Breaking Barriers: Why Fab Labs Struggle to Thrive in Formal Schools

Writer's picture: Liz WhitewolfLiz Whitewolf

This summer at the Fab 24 Conference in Puebla City, Mexico, I had the honor of presenting a peer-reviewed paper based on my research at the University of Pittsburgh. This paper, which was awarded Best Conference Paper, examines why digital makerspaces in schools often fail to achieve authentic integration into the central curriculum. I wanted to share an important section of my work that highlights the systemic challenges teachers face when trying to incorporate digital fabrication into their subject areas. (If you are interested in the research paper as a whole, visit the Fab 24 Conference Proceedings.)


Accepting recognition from Dr. Cindy Solomon for the Best Research Paper Award at Fab 24
Accepting recognition from Dr. Cindy Solomon for the Best Research Paper Award at Fab 24

Too often, school-based makerspaces operate as an "add-on" to the educational program—spaces reserved for isolated activities or specialized electives. While these rooms may serve as exciting spaces of technological exploration for select students, their impact often remains limited. Authentic integration would mean that all teachers and students use these tools to support learning across disciplines. From creating prototypes in science to designing artifacts in history or enhancing visual projects in mathematics, digital makerspaces have the potential to enrich content knowledge and deepen learning in every subject.


However, systemic barriers within schools make this vision difficult to achieve. Drawing from my research, my experience working in and supporting numerous school programs across the United States and internationally, and engaging in stakeholder meetings, I used an Ishikawa diagram to map out the root causes of these challenges. In this post, I’ll share insights from these efforts, highlight the barriers identified, and explore why makerspaces often struggle to reach their full potential in formal education.




An Ishikawa diagram, also known as a fishbone diagram or cause-and-effect diagram, is a tool used to analyze complex problems by identifying and organizing their root causes. It visually represents the relationships between a central problem and contributing factors, allowing for a deeper understanding of the challenges at hand.


In this case, the central problem is: Teachers struggle to achieve authentic integration of digital makerspaces into classroom instruction. The root causes of this problem are categorized by the colored "fishbones" in the diagram. Each end box represents a problem category, such as time, technology knowledge, or support networks, while the boxes along the arrows identify specific issues within each category. This structure provides a clear visual framework for understanding the complex factors that contribute to the central challenge.


1. Time and Space: Teachers often face limited access to makerspaces, which are typically confined to specific rooms or elective classes. Additionally, packed schedules leave little time for planning or integrating makerspace activities into the curriculum, making authentic use of these tools challenging.

2. Technology Knowledge: Many teachers lack familiarity with digital fabrication tools, as professional development opportunities are often insufficient. Without technical training or ongoing support, educators struggle to confidently use the equipment or troubleshoot issues, leading to underutilization.

3. Pedagogy and Integration Knowledge: Even when teachers understand how to operate the tools, they may not know how to effectively incorporate them into content-driven lessons. A lack of pedagogical strategies for integrating makerspaces into various subjects limits their impact on student learning.

4. Standardized Testing: Schools often view digital fabrication as an "add-on" that takes time away from test preparation. This misconception ignores its potential to support and enhance standardized content through hands-on, curriculum-aligned projects.

5. Support Networks: Teachers need a strong support system, including administrators, peers, and technology specialists, to successfully integrate makerspaces into their classrooms. However, many schools lack these networks, leaving educators isolated in their efforts.

6. Student Preparedness: Students’ varying levels of technological literacy can hinder makerspace activities, especially when foundational skills are missing. Teachers may need to spend additional time teaching basic tool usage, further complicating integration into content lessons.


The Ishikawa diagram is a great visualization to start conversations with administrators and other stakeholders about the systemic barriers to integrating digital makerspaces—without introducing blame. These issues need to be understood and addressed in order to begin developing effective solutions that could work for your school. Each school operates within its own local context, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution to these challenges. However, there are many research-backed methodologies that inform the work we do at eduFAB.


Throughout 2025, I will share a series of blog posts focused on addressing these issues, highlighting innovative approaches from schools and programs, as well as featuring resources, strategies, and research that tackle the systemic barriers to implementing digital fabrication makerspaces for formal learning.


Stay tuned for my "Year of Writing," a personal resolution to share insights, solutions, and strategies to help educators overcome these barriers throughout 2025.

Comments


bottom of page