**2.1 Underrepresentation in STEM**

Severe underrepresentation of certain groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) continues to be a serious problem in ensuring that the nation will have a well-trained and skillful workforce in tomorrow's high-tech sector [3]. Today, 30–40% of the workforce in critical areas such as aerospace engineering, next-generation computing, 2-D materials, therapeutics, and drug design is of international origin [4]. The University of Minnesota (UMN) has been successfully broadening participation in STEM for women, but so far not for Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) students. Students enrolled in UMN are majority white female (35.5%). While the percentage of women undergraduate students in the College of Science and Engineering has risen from about 18 to 33% over the past decade, the percentage of African American students has remained around 1.6%. Demographic data on UMN enrollment show 4.04% Black or African American, 3.82% Hispanic or Latino, 3.3% two or more races, 0.309% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.0791% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders. In 2020, however, BIPOC students comprised approximately 25% of the graduating classes in high schools in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area in Minnesota. The growing percentage

**Figure 1.** *STEM Cradle to Career Continuum [5].*

*Bridging the Digital Divide in Design and Mathematics through an Immersive Maker Program… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111787*

of BIPOC students in the Twin Cities area, and in greater Minnesota, makes it an opportune time to develop programs that provide exposure to STEM, particularly in informal maker settings. MINNESOTA COMPASS, a STEM education advocacy group composed of educators and private-sector leaders from companies such as Boston Scientific and Ecolab, has championed what it refers to as the "STEM Cradle to Career Continuum." Their logic model (**Figure 1**) divides the continuum into early childhood, early to late elementary school, middle school, high school and postsecondary education, and early to mid-career. Disparities are recognized to be greatest in middle and high school, with wealthy communities having the means to provide many enriching after-school activities while under-resourced communities do not [6, 7].

#### **2.2 Maker spaces and STEM**

Exposing students to STEM using maker spaces is of great interest among educational institutions across the United States because of demonstrated outcomes [8–11]. The maker space movement was originally developed outside of the school environment and mostly involved adults. Recently, however, there has been interest in integrating it into education, specifically to create opportunities that engage students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics [12]. Investment by funding agencies, increased coverage in the popular press, and investment in maker spaces by museums are all signs of the growing interest in and validation of this type of engaged, informal, hands-on STEM learning. Tinkering Studio at the Exploratorium in San Francisco, Ingenuity Lab at the Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley, Maker Space at the New York Hall of Science, and MAKEShop at the Children's Museum of Pittsburgh [13, 14] are all high-profile examples of maker space exhibits. The US government has made substantial investment in maker spaces through funding agencies and other initiatives. The White House declared June 18, 2014, a "National Day of Making," and in 2015 expanded these activities to a Week of Making from June 12 to June 18 in Washington, DC. The initiative was an overall call to action for companies, colleges, and communities to promote invention, creativity, and resourcefulness and to celebrate the maker movement. While there are many types of "making," Bevan and Ryoo [15] identified three specific types of programs: those focused on entrepreneurship (i.e., making products for market), those focused on workforce development, and those focused on educational programs.

Researchers have discussed three types of educational making—assembly, creative construction, and open-ended inquiry [15–17]. In assembly, learners are given a step-by-step process of how to make an object that results in an identical object. Creative construction involves providing learners with a challenge to address, and the resulting design/object is personalized. Open-ended inquiry involves a learner developing an individual idea and figuring how to accomplish it. This method is often called "tinkering," since it emphasizes creativity [15]. "When Making is organized to leverage students' ideas and interests, it can create powerful conditions for learning to occur particularly for students who may not already affiliate as STEM learners" (p. 3). Maker spaces support a combination of creating, craft making, and experimentation. Evidence shows that these are attributes of top-performing scientist and that these skills are highly valued by STEM educators, professionals, and industry [18].

#### **2.3 Underrepresented students and maker spaces**

The Maker Movement is "traditionally viewed as grounded in gendered, white, middle-class cultural practices" [19, 20], and researchers have argued for making it more inclusive [21, 22]. Researchers at the November 2015 NSF Maker Summit in Washington, DC, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), discussed four key issues crucial to advancing the Maker Movement: (1) the relationship between informal and formal learning; (2) teaching, assessment, and evaluation; (3) diversity, accessibility, and inclusion; and (4) new technologies and innovation [12]. The summit participants highlighted the importance of diversity, accessibility, and inclusion in the maker movement to foster industry growth and economic and global workforce advancement. Summit participants also noted the need for the "emergence of strong leaders from underrepresented communities and advocates for diversity" [12]. Marsh et al. [22], in *Makerspaces in the Early Years: A Literature Review*, discuss the importance of inclusion because of limited literature on underrepresented groups and maker spaces. Kafai et al. [23] discuss "ethnocomputing" in their study, which links traditional indigenous sewing methods and the evolution of e-textiles in their culturally sensitive work to broaden participation in STEM among American Indian youth. Their making process highlights how combining traditional artifacts and recent technological developments can help participants acknowledge and learn about their cultural roots. Eglash [24] describes the synergetic connection in this making process as "design agency," a notion that not only does the maker influence the design but the design influences the maker.

Barton and Tan [21] note that makerspaces that explore communities and cultural traditions are an exception, and discuss community-centered making programs as a way to foster equity, learning, and making. Schwartz and Gutiérrez [25] contend that "[i]nventing, making, tinkering, designing, are indigenous practices, that is, practices that originate and occur naturally in particular ecologies" (p. 577). They argue for a "more culturally-responsive approach," where the making experience benefits both cultures and does not privilege the dominant perspective. Vossoughi et al. [20] also advocate for an equitably framed maker process rather than a situation where "workingclass communities of color are once again positioned as targets of intervention rather than sources of deep knowledge and skill, and dominant communities are reinscribed as being ahead, with something to teach or offer rather than something to learn" (p. 212).
