View Project

G2S Project Code: 2020-MN-86412
State: Minnesota
Fiscal Year: 2020
Grantee
WINONA PUBLIC LIBRARY

Project Director
Director Name: Tricia Wehrenberg
Director Phone: 507-452-4592
Director Email: twehrenberg@selco.info
General Information
Title: Technology Makerspace Labs for Teens and Tweens
State Project Code:
Start Date: 07/01/2020
End Date: 06/30/2021
Abstract: The goal of the Winona Public Library project was to broaden access to technology and makerspace programming for youth, and to expand their opportunities to learn about and apply computational thinking, a key component of college and career readiness. The target population for this project was youth ages 10-16 in the Winona, MN area who do not have access to makerspace materials at home. The project reduced these barriers through the creation of makerspace programming and technology lending kits at Winona Public Library. Grant funds were used to purchase youth-friendly technology equipment, and library staff designed guides for youth to use the equipment at home, along with activities held in person when it was safe to do so. Participating youth demonstrated increased computational thinking skills and dispositions in makerspace activities.


The Winona Public Library hosted 10 safe in-person programs from March-August 2021, with attendance of 54 overall. The library also created a total of 21 lending kits with 4 different types of technology tools, plus starter guides to support patrons in their own learning at home. Patrons could check out the kits just like other library materials for four weeks. Lending kits circulated more than 67 times between January-September 2021. 



State Goal: Libraries contribute to the World’s Best Workforce
Budget Information
LSTA
MATCH-State
MATCH-Other
Total
$14,901.80
$0.00
$2,659.11
$17,560.91
Intent(s)
Improve users’ ability to obtain and/or use information resources.
Digital Literacy
Activities
Activity Details
Title: Makerspace Programs
Narrative:
Winona Public Library hosted 10 in-person makerspace programs between March-August 2021. This was slightly later than the grantees’ projected start date, but as the pandemic worsened in winter 2020, they decided to wait until spring to host in-person programs. The programs introduced youth ages 6-14 to computational thinking through different technology and makerspace tools, starting with Sphero and Osmo in March, April, and May, and adding littleBits and Cubelets during summer 2021 with the receipt of an expanded grant award. Total attendance at programs was 54, reflecting that attendance was capped to ensure that everyone had adequate space.

These programs broadened access to technology and makerspace equipment and gave youth a chance to practice their computational thinking skills and dispositions. To increase access, Winona Public Library brought programs to three different offsite locations - a recreation center, a childcare center, and a park – both to have adequate space for distancing and to reach youth of color who have trouble getting to the library. The grantees’ heard from many youth and families that this was their first time working with the equipment, and they were happy the library had these materials available. To address computational thinking, program staff introduced and named computational thinking skills during sessions. Then as youth tinkered, program staff pointed out when they were using specific skills. Program staff evaluated the programs with individual and group interviews and observation. 


Intent: Improve users’ ability to obtain and/or use information resources.

Activity: Instruction
Mode: Consultation/drop-in/referral
Format: In-person


Quantity
Total number of consultation/reference transactions: 10
Average number of consultation/reference transactions per month: 3


Partner Information
Organization Type of Partner Organization(s):
Libraries: No
Historical Societies or Organizations: No
Museums: No
Archives: No
Cultural Heritage Organization Multi-type: No
Preschools: No
Schools: No
Adult Education: No
Human Service Organizations: No
Other: No


Legal Type of Partner Organization(s):
Federal Government: No
State Government: No
Local Government (excluding school districts): No
School District: No
Non-Profit: No
Private Sector: No
Tribe/Native Hawaiian Organization: No


Beneficiaries
Is the activity directed at the library workforce: No
For a targeted group or for the general population: Targeted
Geographic community of the targeted group: Suburban
Rural
For what age groups: 6-12 years
13-17 years
For what economic types: Economic Not Applicable
For what ethnicity types: Ethnicity Not Applicable
Is the activity directed at families: No
Is the activity directed at intergenerational groups: No
Is the activity directed at immigrants/refugees: No
Is the activity directed at those with disabilities: No
Limited functional literacy or informational skills: No
Is the activity category not already captured: Yes: rural, low-income


Locale
Is the activity state-wide: No
Specific Locations: No
Library Types
Public Libraries: 1
Academic Libraries: 0
SLAA: 0
Consortia: 0
Special Libraries: 0
School Libraries: 0
Other: 0
Activity Details
Title: Content Creation
Narrative:

Due to the pandemic, Winona Public Library knew it would be difficult to achieve their goals of increasing access to technology and building computational thinking skills with programming alone. So the grantee created lending kits that enabled patrons to use the equipment at home. The grantees started with 5 lending kits of Sphero BOLT robots and created a guide to the robot to help patrons get started and find the self-guided activities that suited them. The grantees launched the lending kits in late January 2021,and from then through September 14, 2021, Bolt kits were checked out a total of 36 times for a lending period of 4 weeks, circulating almost constantly since they were made available.

 

In June 2021, Winona Public Library had the opportunity toexpand their grant project with additional funding, and they expanded both ourin-house and circulating collections. The grantees selected Cubetto, Cubelets,and littleBits for the lending kits in order to appeal to a broader range ofages and abilities and provide a greater variety of makerspace and codingactivities. The Sphero Bolt requires a smartphone or tablet to run, whereasCubetto, Cubelets, and littleBits are great options for youth without access toa device at home. The grantees created 5 Cubetto kits, 5 Cubelets kits, and 6littleBits kits, all with starter guides. The new kits have circulated morethan 32 times from late June-mid September 2021.



Intent: Improve users’ ability to obtain and/or use information resources.

Activity: Content
Mode: Creation
Format: Combined physical & digital


Quantity
Number of items digitized: 0
Number of items digitized and available to the public: 0
Number of physical items: 21
Number of open-source applications/software/systems: 0
Number of proprietary applications/software/systems: 0
Number of learning resources (e.g. toolkits, guides): 4
Number of plans/frameworks: 0


Partner Information
Organization Type of Partner Organization(s):
Libraries: No
Historical Societies or Organizations: No
Museums: No
Archives: No
Cultural Heritage Organization Multi-type: No
Preschools: No
Schools: No
Adult Education: No
Human Service Organizations: No
Other: No


Legal Type of Partner Organization(s):
Federal Government: No
State Government: No
Local Government (excluding school districts): No
School District: No
Non-Profit: No
Private Sector: No
Tribe/Native Hawaiian Organization: No


Beneficiaries
Is the activity directed at the library workforce: No
For a targeted group or for the general population: Targeted
Geographic community of the targeted group: Rural
For what age groups: 6-12 years
13-17 years
For what economic types: Economic Not Applicable
For what ethnicity types: Ethnicity Not Applicable
Is the activity directed at families: No
Is the activity directed at intergenerational groups: No
Is the activity directed at immigrants/refugees: No
Is the activity directed at those with disabilities: No
Limited functional literacy or informational skills: No
Is the activity category not already captured: Yes: Rural, low-income


Locale
Is the activity state-wide: No
Specific Locations: No
Library Types
Public Libraries: 1
Academic Libraries: 0
SLAA: 0
Consortia: 0
Special Libraries: 0
School Libraries: 0
Other: 0
Project Outcomes
Project Outcomes
List any important outcomes or findings not previously reported:
A major outcome of Winona Public Library’s project was increased access to youth-friendly technology. In a school year and summer of ongoing Covid-related disruptions, youth and their families were looking for fun ways to keep learning, and the kits and distanced programs they created helped to meet that need. The lending kits were the first of their kind in the grantee’s area, and many patrons were surprised that they could actually check the items out and use them at home. In the surveys they collected on the lending kits, 97% of patrons agreed or strongly agreed they had tried something new or different with the kit. The kits also increased interest in computational thinking activities. In surveys, 82% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed they were interested in learning more about coding after using a lending kit. Winona Public Library tried a few different program models for the in-person programs, mainly due to COVID. In the spring, Winona Public Library held two distinct sets of programs, where youth were encouraged to attend all sessions if they could, similar to a camp. This was a new program model, and with all the disruptions of COVID, the grantee didn’t get full attendance at all sessions. Physical distancing also made it difficult to fully facilitate the program for youth who were new to the technology. So for the summer, the grantee brought programming outside and set up the programs as a series (come to as many as you like) rather than a camp (commit to all sessions). This worked well, although facilitators had to prepare for a wide range of familiarity levels at each session. Outcomes during programs were evaluated with focus group interviews and facilitator observation. During the programs, program staff highlighted computational thinking skills and observed youth implementing the skills. For example, youth worked on a multi-part code in stages to program the Sphero Bolt to do a dance, exemplifying both decomposition and algorithm design. At another program, youth were asked: “Was there a time when you wanted to give up? What did you do?” They named several strategies, from walking around to drawing their design on paper, demonstrating computational thinking dispositions of working through difficult problems and tolerating ambiguity.
Please briefly describe the importance of these outcomes and findings for future program planning:
Going forward, Winona Public Library will probably look at expanding the reach of these makerspace programs through a mix of series, special events, and drop-in self-guided programs. Camps are still a good option, but work best with a more reliable group of youth, such as in partnership with a youth center. The grantee will also look at better ways to reach older teens, as the age range of the youth who actually came to programs skewed to the younger end of the target audience. This is common for the library's teen programs. Project staff did, however, see older teens use the equipment at home via the lending kits.
Explain one or two of the most significant lessons learned for others wanting to adopt any facets of this project:
Overall, this project was a successful pilot for lending makerspace technology for out-of-the-building use, and Winona Public Library look forward to continuing to offer makerspace technology as a lending resource in their community. To minimize lost or non-returned pieces, the grantee has a conversation with each person who checks out a kit so they are aware of their responsibility to bring it back. They also chose to limit households to one kit at a time so that kits stay available for more people. Patrons liked the option to use the technology for a longer period of time, and one young patron actually used a Sphero Bolt lending kit for a 4-H demonstration! This project was also a successful pilot for incorporating new technology into programming on an ongoing basis. The grantee found that even with a wide range of familiarity levels (from kids who had used a lending kit extensively at home to kids who had never seen the technology before), programming that focused on problem-based learning or a “challenge of the day” was highly engaging to all who attended. Youth were eager for more opportunities to come back and try the technology again and develop their skills further, no matter where they started. The project met a need for access to educational technology in greater Minnesota. Several patrons noted that this technology would have been difficult for them to access without the lending program and in-person programs, and they were glad to expose their children to a wide variety of educational experiences. Digital literacy and computational thinking are important aspects of college and career readiness, and this project expanded opportunities for youth to obtain those valuable skills.
Do you anticipate continuing this project after the current reporting period ends:
Yes
Do you anticipate any change in level of effort in managing this project:
Yes
Explain:
A major part of the effort on the front end of this project went toward choosing equipment and finding easy entry-level activities to facilitate with youth. Now that work is done, the grantee has a better handle on how to use and facilitate programs with the technology. They plan to integrate the technology makerspace tools into their general programming on a monthly basis
Do you anticipate changing the types of activities and objectives addressed by the project:
No
Explain:

Was an evaluation conducted for this project:
No
Was a final written evaluation report produced:
No
Can the final written evaluation report be shared publicly on the IMLS website:
No
Was the evaluation conducted by project staff (either SLAA or local library) or by a third-party evaluator:
Third-Party
What data collection tools were used for any report outcomes and outputs:
Did you collect any media for the data:
What types of methods were used to analyze collected data:
Other:
How were participants (or items) selected:
What type of research design did you use to compare the value for any reported output or outcome:
Exemplary: Yes
Exemplary NarrativeThis high-level library program was an outgrowth of a statewide training initiative based on the IMLS-funded Transforming Teen Services project. It meets a community interest and delivers services in an equitable way.
Project Tags: computational thinking, makerspace