Making The Future School: An Analysis of Teens' Collaborative Digital Fabrication Project

Maker culture emphasizes informal, networked, self- and peer-led learning, motivated by fun and self-fulfillment, and learning through mistakes. However, studies often describe activities involving a lot of guidance. As guidance may lead to both the process and outcomes influenced by those guiding the activity, it is also important to examine how projects evolve without the supporters' push. We take a nexus analytical approach to explore 1) how teens' background, interactions with others, and available materials and spaces are at play when they shape their ideas and outputs in a collaborative maker project with minimal support, and 2) how these factors can be considered to better support learning in such projects. The work carried out by five teens in a local FabLab was based on peer collaboration within changing apprentice mentor pairs. When they ideated and prototyped for a future school, researchers provided minimal support, mainly online. Without their push, teens quickly modified tasks which both guided and narrowed down their thinking. Their experiences from school environment and the FabLab space served as an inspiration as they designed solutions to overcome current problems in the current school setting or digital fabrication process. When making, they gravitated towards processes they had previous experience of or which they enjoyed, perhaps partly affected by the competing discourses of maker culture and expertise we observed to be present in the FabLab space. While building on existing skillsets, this may leave the potential of novel trajectories and expanding one's skills and competences unexplored. Teens' self-esteem improved as they turned from apprentices to mentors for their peers. This allowed them to process their learning from a different perspective. In general, our results paint a detailed picture of the roles of different participants in a maker project and provide an example of how familiar discourses of education persist in teens' designs. Looking at the project through the lens of Nexus analysis contributes to an increased understanding of the space for action and participants' histories, and interactions on the process, valuable for researchers studying DF and making, and practitioners working in makerspaces and FabLabs with different user groups. On a more practical level, our work contributes to a deeper understanding on how to include teens into non-guided and community-driven maker practices. We provide practical implications on how to support learning in collaborative making projects in informal learning situations, and regarding the role of the different actors and the environment in such situations. We also identify avenues for future research in this area.


INTRODUCTION
Makerspaces, FabLabs and hackerspaces provide communal facilities and resources related to digital fabrication (later referred to as DF) and open electronics [64].Maker culture began to take off during the early 21st century due to a growing interest among members of the DIY movement in technology and DF [15,29].Maker culture promotes the use technologies and processes like DF, textile craft, robotics, electronics and mechanical repair, to augment a set of values that intersect creativity, innovation, collaboration, and empowerment [22,64].In maker culture, there was a desire to democratize access to technology, making it more inclusive and accessible to a diverse user base."Making" emphasizes the empowerment of individuals through the usage of technology to produce any physical products.At the same time, it places emphasis on the importance of community and social connections.The learning process is often communitydriven, with individuals sharing knowledge and resources to achieve shared goals [7,23], e.g., through sharing documentation, tutorials and design files [46], or peers collaborating by bringing together skills to achieve a shared goal.In makerspaces, it is not uncommon to observe spontaneous collaboration among makers working on their own projects.This community-driven learning often leads to different levels of innovation [52].Engaging in DF and making has the potential to strengthen many 21st century skills [7,17,25,54,69] needed for growth, employment and participation in society [10,65].Those skills include not only hard and technological skills (e.g., electronics, programming or 3D modelling) but also skills related to critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, teamwork, and communication (See e.g., [5,17,54,55]) There is a growing body of research within the CSCW community on DF and maker culture, with focus on non-formal contexts and makerspaces [28,35,56,68].Much of that literature examines the collaborative nature of making and makerspaces from various perspectives.For instance, research emphasizes the importance of examining makerspaces to understand the dynamics of collaborative work, design and technology production, not only as a base for multiperson projects, but as a gear for community care and maintenance [56,68].Additionally, research has explored how 3D printing can be utilized as a collaborative tool outside of shared makerspaces, for remote collaboration [28].There is also interest in makerspaces for adult education in entrepreneurship, investigating them as socio-technical environments promoting entrepreneurial skills by interacting with others [35].Besides research with adults, there is also growing interest on the benefits of DF and making in educating children, and studies have explored how making could be integrated in formal education (e.g., [5,12,31,32,36,39,61]).As DF and making are often characterized arising from participants' personal commitment to voluntary activity among peers, education in formal settings constrained by curricula and school practices involves a different ethos.Studies with children also address DF and making beyond formal education in computing, programming, robotics, and making clubs in spaces like libraries, museums or FabLabs (e.g., [19,53,66,67]).However, in general, even though maker culture emphasizes informal, networked, self-and peer-led, and shared learning motivated by fun and self-fulfillment, and learning through mistakes [34,59], studies on DF and making tend to focus on reporting success stories [48].Moreover, most describe activities involving a lot of support instead of more informal non-guided learning.Obviously, support is beneficial, and necessary in certain cases.But the process and final outcomes of maker projects guided by teachers or other instructors can bear a strong influence from the guiding person.More research is warranted concerning how DF and making projects evolve without supporters' push to better support learning in making projects in informal learning situations.
The study reported in this paper is a part of a larger research project where the focus is on empowering participants through DF and making [anonymized, reference added pending acceptance].In this exploratory study, we examine a making project where five teenagers worked in a FabLab in changing apprentice-mentor pairs and collaborated in ideating, designing, and prototyping a 'future school'.As our theoretical lens, we use Nexus analysis (Later referred to as NA) [57].NA is well suited for researching complex social action, such as the one reported in this paper, happening in the intersection (or nexus) of participants' backgrounds (In NA referred to as historical bodies), the discourses present in situ, even embedded in the material objects of the space (discourses in place) and participants interaction with other actors (interaction order).NA is also a fitting lens, since studies related to DF and making have shown participants' background as for skills, knowledge, and experience affect their engagement in making [21,36,38,48,51].The space and materials they work with, and their interaction is also influential, even if less explored in literature [48,49] We pose two research questions guided by our theoretical lens: 1) How are the teens backgrounds, interactions and discourses at play when they shape their ideas and outputs in a collaborative making project?2) How can these factors be considered to support learning in collaborative making projects in informal learning situations?For the teens, the project was part of their summer job with tasks to accomplish.We consider it an informal learning situation, as guidance was minimal, i.e., the researchers provided minimal support, mainly online and teens were free to work on the project exploring the space and processes as they saw fit, supported by each other and FabLab staff if help was needed.The work was learner led, based on teens' own interest and motivation, and not assessed [20].This setting allows us to examine how teenager undertake a project with minimal guidance, allowing participants to take full ownership (and responsibility) of the process and its outputs.
An overarching aim of our research is to increase researchers' and practitioners' understanding of the multitude of aspects at play in the making process among participants, especially with minimal support, and of the methodological approach to capture such complexity.Looking at the teens collaborative making project through the lens provided by NA contributes to an increased understanding of the space for action and participants' histories, and interactions on the process, valuable for researchers studying DF and making, and practitioners working in makerspaces and FabLabs with different user groups.Furthermore, exploring teens working on a largely unsupported process guided by participants is in its importance not limited only to making, but relevant and important to the broader scientific landscape as well.On a practical level, our work contributes to a deeper understanding on how to include teens into non-guided communitydriven maker practices which are very different from what they are used to considering their experience from formal education.In our work, we provide practical implications on how to support learning in collaborative making projects in informal learning situations, and regarding the role of the different actors and the environment in such situations.We also identify avenues for future research on this area.While our study has limitations related to e.g., the number of PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 91.Publication date: April 2024.
participants, we believe that the findings of our exploratory study provide a solid foundation for future work in this area.

RELATED WORK
In this section we present related literature on collaborative making with teens, followed by how research has seen participants' background, their interaction and the space affects ideation and making.

Teens and collaborative making
DF and making activities are often offered in a drop-by manner for those interested in trying the processes in a self-driven way (e.g., [4]).Activities targeting youth are also organized in workshops of different time spans ( [3,69]), or as in our case, in intensive periods (e.g., [45,49]).Although most research concentrates on formal educational settings, there is growing interest in DF in contexts like refugee camps [1,41,62], summer academy activities [6], summer job and holiday projects [49,71], after-school programs [3], after-school jobs [18] and community spaces [63,66].In general, DF and making projects with children and youth often emphasize solving their own problems and serving their own needs through Making, even if at the same time engaging with and contributing to the wider community [69].
In a ten-week project with after-school club meetings once a week participants' appreciation of popular music was combined with making [3].In one study, spanning over a summer, over 1000 youth took part in ideating and implementing interactive murals with a message in five locations in underserved neighborhoods [66].In a summer making program for refugees, the creation of their own board game was a making activity that served as a cultural and language bridge [63].In one study, immigrant Latina teens delegated and accomplished tasks, used or repurposed tools, and developed expertise designing and creating an electronic game [44].Besides hobby-like school clubs and summer camps often arranged in collaboration with schools, DF has been applied in temporary or part-time jobs and traineeships.As in this paper, youth have engaged as summer workers in DF projects, e.g., in a program learning DF and programming to create a digital/physical water piano [71].In other studies, teens got to know 3D printing and modelling during traineeship [49] and working in a 3D print shop as their after-school job [18].Teens have also worked in drop-by makerspaces mentoring children, which enabled self-driven learning through versatile projects [4].In these cases, getting familiar with DF was a job-related duty rather than driven by intrinsic motivation.However, existing skills or interest were prerequisites for participation.
The work above offers interesting examples of projects carried out with teens.There is some research aiming to understand how collaboration happens [45] and how to support it [43] in secondary school students.However, in general, literature concerning collaborative making and teens is scarce, especially in informal learning settings.Our research contributes to this strand of research by exploring a maker project where teens collaboratively ideated and prototyped for a future school in a local FabLab.We consider it an informal learning situation, as guidance was minimal and teens were free to work on the project as they saw fit, supported by each other and FabLab staff if help was needed.Furthermore, the work was learner led, based on the participants own interest and motivation, and not assessed [20].

Effect of participants' background, interaction, and space
Participants' backgrounds concerning age, skills, knowledge, and experiences affecting engagement in DF and making have been explored in some studies.Age, for example, plays a part when learning to code as younger kids focus more on characters' appearance and teens on hypothesis testing [51]).Technology experience also influences design in making, e.g., if children complete a making task first, their design ideas are more complex [21].Children's background and experience in relation to the materials, tools, and toys used in making are meaningful [36]: their individual and social histories, for example, related to their conceptions on making and STEM impact participation [60].Teens engaged in collaborative making deal with a complex configuration of relationships and the shaping of the artefact at hand, showing familiarity with each other's knowledge and skills, and using them as resources in teamwork [37].Furthermore, "sink-or-swim" culture in making has been proved to be problematic, especially from the novices' perspective.When students with no background in technology or making receive no facilitation, they feel lost and frustrated and report lower self-esteem afterwards compared with others with previous experience.[8].
Interactional aspects have also been discussed in research.When children first engage in DF and making they see design as a challenging social process involving constant negotiation and solving fuzzy problems, where the emergence of a shared understanding often waits until the ideas become concrete [38].Teens engaged in entrepreneurship and making experienced ideation to be difficult while accomplishing open-ended tasks in assigned groups [32].They were shy to ask for help, and work was not evenly distributed [32,33].Although support is often expected from adults, letting students work on their own promotes their technical skills, however.Working together, again, encourages spending more time in the makerspace [11].In a study where teens engaged in 3D modelling and printing with freedom to divide tasks without adult approval, tasks were distributed unevenly or even in a disconnected manner if somebody chose to carry out tasks individually [49].Related to this, when teens worked in collaboration on client jobs in a 3D print shop as their after-school job, documenting also unsuccessful projects emerged as important for them for successful handoffs, as did the possibility to interact with adults assigning and prioritizing tasks [18].Adults also provided professional mentoring, technical assistance, and an introduction to collaborative tools and processes needed [18].Studies have pointed out how teens may appear to ignore the project just having fun with each other [37], or sitting around browsing their phones [32].However, after a closer look, they were seen to advance their project, switching their positions from peers, classmates to good students doing the task, sometimes prompted by approaching adults in sight [37].The nature of maker communities affects the level of learning and collaboration: most interaction happens in fluid and unregulated makerspaces [40].
As for the space and tools available, studies have found the physical arrangement and ambience in FabLab positively influence interactions and engagement of groups engaged in 3D design and printing, providing teens with informal, relaxed and happy experiences [49].The freedom of the environment and the instruction provided may cause confusion among teens used to the structure and support provided at school [32,33].While they enjoy the space, freedom and change of scenery during projects, they may find it hard to envision future projects, perhaps a little overwhelmed by the space and its possibilities [32,33].The space and tools available may also have an impact on task distribution on collaborative projects, e.g., it may be difficult to distribute tasks if a process can only be completed by one person [37].When the Covid-19 pandemic forced instruction online, interaction between participants and remotely present researchers decreased, as did interactions between participants present in the same space [30].A recent literature review shows that participants' histories and interactions are rarely the focus in studies or reported in detail, even though they significantly affect what happens in making activities [48].More research on the role of the material environment together with interactions with others has been called for [49].We aim to add to this discussion through a more holistic examination enabled by our theoretical lens NA, concerning how participants' background, their interaction and space affect the making process.While most research describes highly supported design and making activities, we examine an activity with minimal researcher intervention to understand how teens engage in ideation, design, and the making process between themselves.

METHODS
In this section, we describe the collaborative making project, followed by a description of the empirical data collected, the theoretical lens, and the steps of data analysis.

Future school project and data collection
The future school project was carried out within a wider research initiative aiming to study empowerment through DF and making [anonymized, reference added pending acceptance].This paper illustrates work carried out during five weeks when five teenagers worked in pairs in the university FabLab space to ideate, design and prototype a future school.The four researchers involved with the future school project include those with expertise in DF, design and making and pedagogy.
The participants were recruited through a municipality summer job program, offered for 15-18-year-olds through an open procedure.The participants gave their informed consent for research (form signed).According to the [anonymized, country added pending acceptance] national principles for research ethics, over 15-year-old adolescents can decide themselves about their participation in research.However, the teenagers got research information documents to show their parents at home.
The project sought participants to design and execute a making project and prepare videos and social media posts.Experience of DF was not mandatory but interest in technology was expected.Before the project started, one researcher carried out an initial interview with each teenager to learn about their background.The planned process for each participant included seven phases (see Fig. 1) Fig. 1.Planned structure of the weekly making and ideation process.
In the introductory phase (1), the participants familiarized with FabLab and the processes available.Individual ideation (2) focused on visions of future school and its objects, furniture, technologies, and how DF could be implemented there.The ideas were documented on an online tool (https://padlet.com).This was to be followed by collaborative ideation (3) where teens introduced the ideas to each other and refined them together.Next the teens were to generate concept pictures and scenarios (4) about a day in future school together.During making (5), they worked collaboratively to build parts for the future school using FabLab processes e.g., 2D and 3D design, vinyl and laser cutting, 3D printing and electronics.Ideas were combined (6), to build a final prototype of the future school Finally, participant reflections (7) were obtained via writing assignments, and discussions with researchers.Throughout the project, the teens were to document their tasks in the project social media.A simplified version of the study brief and reflection prompt was given to teens (see Appendix 1).
Each participant worked on the project for 60 hours, spread over two weeks.Working periods overlapped so the teen who had already worked for a week could support a newcomer (apprentice) as a mentor the second week (see Table 1).The pairs were planned so that a teen with social media experience worked with one with technical background.During their first week apprentices got to know the tasks and FabLab practices including the machines and software, during their second week they mentored the new apprentice joining the work.Thus, knowledge would flow from one teen to another until the end of the project.The first and last week were exceptions: initially, Andy and Bobby were both apprentices, and finally, both Evan and Andy were mentors.Andy worked at the beginning and at the end of the project because he had video editing experience, and he was to edit videos for the project in the end, documenting the future school project and processes used with the help of materials produced.More information about the participants and their background is provided in Results section of the paper (Section 4.1.1).During week 1, the first pair was introduced to the project by two researchers.In addition, throughout the project, whenever a new apprentice started, at least one researcher was present to go through the basics about the summer job such as working hours, salary, duties etc.After this, teens worked independently, supported by FabLab staff.They were free to divide the workload between themselves as they wished.
Different communication channels were established to communicate with the teens during the project.Researchers prepared a Padlet board to facilitate their individual and collective ideation, an Instagram account for documenting the project progress, and a WhatsApp group that the teens could use for documenting and bringing any issue to the researchers.All researchers were following and actively answering the messages in the WhatsApp group.In addition, at least one researcher had a daily wrap-up meeting with the teenagers, either face to face or via Teams.The communication among researchers happened mainly on a Teams channel, used also to share the observations and field notes.The following empirical data were collected during the project: 1) Initial interviews with each teen concerning e.g., their background, social media experience and technology expertise, 2) Individual and collaborative ideation by the teens on future school documented in Padlet entries, 3) project documentation done by the teens, including process photos, social media updates via Instagram and WhatsApp.4) weekly reports by the teens, including descriptions of tasks and groupwork progress, 5) reflective essays by the teens at the end of the project concerning e.g., their understandings concerning project goals and tasks, degree of help and support, what was learned, what was difficult, and what was easy.Documentation also included 6) researchers' field notes e.g. on the FabLab space, the teens progress, their interactions with each other and other actors involved, as well as 7) researchers' notes from follow-up meetings with teens carried out face-to-face or in Teams.Examples of data generated in the project are presented in Appendix 2.

Theoretical lens and data analysis
We apply Nexus analysis (NA) to answer our research questions: 1) How are participants' backgrounds, interactions, and discourses at play when teens shape their ideas and outputs in a collaborative making project?And 2) how to take these aspects into account to support peer learning in collaborative making projects in informal learning situations?NA has been shown to be a well-suited research strategy for studying complex social action [57].It provides this study with a theoretical lens in viewing social action as emerging in simultaneous interplay between the historical bodies [47] of participants, their mutual interaction orders [26], and discourses in place [57].Social action is seen as arising from specific moments of time but also evolving across longer timespans, which requires gathering several kinds of data, including participatory observation [57].
The social action under scrutiny in this paper is the ideation and making project as carried out by teens participating in a collaborative future school project.Historical body in this connection refers to the teens' familiar practices and experiences of being students at school and users of digital technology.Interaction order is understood as relationships and power balances between the teens and others involved in enacting and enabling the making process.For teens, accustomed to interaction orders at school with the teacher in charge, it may be challenging to act entirely independently, seeing making as something else than a school activity.Building relationships with others, people are always engaged in delicate position taking, consciously or unconsciously, when they present themselves in the light they want to be seen, responding also to how others position them [14,26,27].Finally, discourses in place involve meaning making in situ but also semiotic cycles circulating across longer time-spaces.For example, the machines, furniture, and materials in FabLab have specific effects on making activities, carrying meanings from their makers -more distant actors from different communities and cultures.
Following NA, a range of materials were used in the study [57].Table 2 illustrates the steps of the analysis with special reference to the foci of the analysis and materials used.
Nexus analysis is based on a social constructivist-transformative framework in combining discursive, and interactional perspectives, and inductive and collaborative methodological procedures in making sense of the research materials [57].The analysis thus proceeded through several cycles of data analysis and discussions in data workshops, with the aim to achieve a deeper understanding of what was going on in the project and to answer the research questions.

All materials
The aspects of social action (historical body, interaction order and discourses in place) were drawn on as theoretical lenses in delving through the diverse materials to shed light on how the teens' making project evolved.Participants' experience and previous knowledge (historical body) were explored, giving ground to how their sense making about the work process advanced, to what they felt they had learnt, and to what kinds of emotions they attached to their work.Their mutual relationships were also considered (interaction order) as was the situated environment as a space echoing discourses related to collaboration and making (discourses in place), at the same time reaching temporally and spatially to more distant dimensions.[57].In the following section, we present extracts from our materials that are illustrative of the analytical foci, and then move on to an analysis guided by NA principles.

RESULTS
In this section, we first unfold the future school project: We describe the participants, and the space where they worked, and move on to presenting their weekly ideas and outcomes also including reflections from researchers and teens throughout the weeks.Finally, based on this unfolding, we provide insights into how participants' historical bodies, their interaction orders and discourses in place affected the way their DF and making project evolved without supporters' push.
4.1 Unfolding the future school project 4.1.1The participants.Five teenagers aged between 15-17 took part in the future school project.They had a starting interview with one of the researchers to capture their background.The participants, their age and self-reported strengths can be seen in Table 3.  Andy studies electricity and automation in vocational college and has become acquainted with electrical engineering, automation, and IT.He explains he is a social person: "I am social and get along with everyone.I know how to create a good atmosphere" (Andy interview).He likes videography and photography.He has video editing experience and software.He has experience of social media.He is friends with Bobby.
Bobby studies electricity and automation in vocational college.He describes himself as a brisk customer-service-oriented person who gets things done: "I am fast to take on any task and understand that it is the customer who pays my salary" (Bobby Interview).He has experience from a summer job working with coding, robotics, laser cutting and modelling, and used laser cutter at school.He has social media experience in Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook and YouTube.
Christian is finishing his second year at high school and studies advanced mathematics as an elective.He is interested in technology which is why he applied for the summer job: "I want to do something fun and useful, working with computers and robots is that for me" (Christian interview).He says he enjoys learning and challenges: "I am eager to learn new things and to solve any challenges that I face alone or in a group" (Christian interview).He volunteers in school IT maintenance where he has learned the basics of Linux.He attends a robotics club and participates in robotics competitions.He is interested in Arduino and sensors and has experience with video editing Danielle is a high school student.She describes herself as a social person who likes challenges: "I am a social and happy teen.I dare to pick up any challenge with good vibes" (Danielle interview).Her hobbies are playing the guitar and producing music.She also takes music as an elective at school.She has social media experience and makes videos for TikTok, for instance.
Evan is finishing his last grade at junior high.One of his electives is handicraft with tech emphasis and he is interested in making: "I am very interested in digital fabrication and learning new things" (Evan Interview) At school, he gained experience of 3D-printing, laser cutting and electronics.For instance, he made a laser-cut lamp.He knows some video editing but does not have much social media experience.
4.1.2The working environment.The primary workspace for the project was the university FabLab, which spreads over two levels and is divided into a machine space, a computer space, and an electronics room (see Fig. 2).People entering the university walk past a glass wall running the length of the FabLab machine space.Much of that wall can be observed to be occupied by a display of artefacts made there.Big free-standing machines (a laser cutter, a 3D printer, and a sanding machine) are seen positioned along the walls, with smaller machines on high tables filling much of the space (e.g., 3D modelling machine, sewing machines, 3D printers, vinyl cutter, laser cutter, milling machines and laptops).Assorted tools, materials, and machines under repair occupy the tables and available storage spaces.Tools like hammers, measuring tapes and screwdrivers are prominently displayed hanging on a wall.Desks and chairs form a work area close to a staircase leading to the upstairs computer space, which has a large table housing six PCs.Downstairs, adjacent to the machine space, is a room with electronics stations, visible through a glass wall.
FabLab is open on weekdays for students and staff.Others can access the premises on a fixed schedule.There is an online system for booking machines, but anyone can use ones that are free.At least one staff member is always present to instruct visitors.Staff wear casual clothing, blending in with visitors.FabLab is a noisy, bustling space with people moving around, using the machines, and working on projects.
4.1.3Weekly progress and reflections.Fig. 3 below presents the prototype outcomes from each week, retrieved from the participants photos and social media updates they posted during the project.In the following sections we present the ideation and making process resulting in these weekly outcomes.energy-saving lighting.DF is used in teaching and to create objects needed at school or in free time.It is noteworthy the teens independently extend the ideation assignment to include practices.They envision e.g., smaller groups, more group work and freedom choosing electives, perhaps reflecting on common issues they have faced in their studies: "We thought in the future class sizes would be smaller, because then teachers can focus on individuals, which contributes to teaching quality [...] As a rule, students study the subjects that interest them most, but complete each at least at the basic level.There are many electives and each chooses preferred ones.This makes it easier to choose further education, and the number of university and polytechnic graduates has increased greatly."(W1 Padlet).Table 4 summarizes all ideas documented in the Padlet from week one.When led by a researcher on their first day, Andy and Bobby ideate a future school, but when prototyping, they focus on a smaller, perhaps more feasible part, a math class.Their classroom (see Fig. 3) features a cardboard frame glued together with windows made with a boxcutter.They add felt carpet and curtains, vinyl-cut decals, laser-cut tables, 3D-printed chairs based on an online model, and a LED light strip: "We installed 12 volt LED lights to our class.It works with a switch that turns it off and on" (W1 report).The teens use Inkscape to design the wall decal and tables.Table legs are attached with a glue gun.
Researcher reflections.During the week, Andy and Bobby worked independently and established the project social media, making daily updates.They rarely report problems or difficulties.When probed, they indicate learning, having fun, and getting help from FabLab staff.At the end of the week teens feel they accomplished their goals successfully: "The week went by very fast and was fun.We accomplished our goals and worked as we had planned" (W1 report).In our observation notes, we express happiness with the project starting with a "very active" pair that "work well together", perhaps because of their previously established relationship through common studies.
W2: Technical class and the shift to collaborative ideation.Ideas and outcomes.Bobby mentored Christian, a high school student who explained in his interview taking advanced mathematics and being interested in computers and robotics.This week, independent ideation morphed into collaboration as Bobby chose to first show Christian the Padlet and previous prototype.The focus also shifted from "future school" to "future classroom" when they ideated for a technical class, visible e.g., in the following snippet taken from their weekly ideation padlet: "We thought that the technical class of the future would have more DF machines, and indicators of pupils' alertness, air quality meters and other sensors used in the future.Automatic lighting would be good.Active noise-cancelling could be used to reduce noise levels in the loudest parts.[…] The classroom has double doors to make it easier to fit even larger structures outside.There is a space in front for the teacher's workstation.There is a touch screen on the wall making it easy to illustrate what is being taught.Ordinary desks serve as tables for students, and they sit on stools that can be lifted over tables to save space.[…] 3D printers could have functionalities where you only think of an object to print it.This would make modelling easier and make even the more difficult ideas something that can be fabricated" (W2 Padlet).Table 5 summarizes all ideas documented in the padlet from week two.Bobby and Christian both describe themselves technically oriented, which is somehow visible in their classroom prototype presented in Fig. 3, as they were the only pair using embedded programming and electronics.They upgrade the class into a laser-cut MDF box, designed with an open-source box generator (boxes.py),and post an image of the end result on Instagram with the caption: "Cardboard replaced with wood! " (W2 Instagram).They design tables with Inkscape, use the laser cutter, and a hot glue gun to assemble.Inkscape and a vinyl cutter are used to produce a wall decal.They 3D-print laptops, a 3D printer, and a TV using models found online.They use Blender to 3D-design chairs and explore different 3D printers to produce objects, e.g., print with two different filaments.They also work with Arduino and add a lighting fixture: "We added a light to the ceiling with Arduino.It includes some health benefits and it improves concentration" (W2 report) Researcher reflections.When prototyping, Bobby and Christian created what looked like a standard class, and researchers first observed there might be a block in creativity: "they are ideating normal classes, but with machines […] we should try to push their creativity a bit further.I don't want sci-fi, but something more risky -innovative".When looking both at their ideas and the prototype, we understood it might be they had trouble depicting ideas in the prototype with skills acquired.We did not want to interfere too much, but decided to refine instructions, trying to encourage them to think out-of-the box without rejecting ideas deeming them silly or impossible, and stressing they do not have to create something perfect but play with the processes.The teens finished the prototype early, and after they indicated boredom, we guided them towards tutorials based on their interests.In our reflections we noted Bobby took the initiative as a mentor and seemed to always be doing something hands-on.He was communicative and indicated needing little support.The researchers noted Christian seemed a little shy in person, but he was communicative in written online communication, taking initiative e.g., by asking if there might be additional materials: "Is there an Arduino available?We are thinking of adding an air quality monitor" (W2 WhatsApp).In his communication, he indicated to us liking freedom to pursue his interests but also brought up he would like support mentoring a newcomer the following week.
Mentoring teen reflections.This was Bobby's last week on the project.In his reflective essay, he notes the instructions provided and the purpose of the project were clear.He worked with a 3D printer, laser cutter, and software like Inkscape, SketchUp and Blender.He recalls specific software used to control machines.3D printing had been the most challenging: "to understand and use 3D printing software, they were complicated".He had previous experience in laser cutting and feels he learned most about 3D printing and Arduino, which he believes will be useful in future studies.He got help especially from FabLab staff whom he considered knowledgeable: "A shoutout to [instructor] who knows all the FabLab equipment!".He was happy with his performance, being active and interested.
W3: Future physics class and post-it notes to illustrate abstract ideas Ideas and outcomes.Christian mentored Danielle, a high school student.In her interview, she detailed having experience of social media and making videos for TikTok, for instance.The pair were met by a researcher who introduced the revised instructions and reminded them about the importance of the apprentice ideating independently.However, ideation again turns into collaboration, this time for a future physics class, and the pair document on Padlet e.g., the following: "Physics would be made more interesting by taking into account previous experiences and observations of real-world phenomena, by utilizing their interests, and by encouraging them to find connections from their own interests to the topic.Lessons should not be too long.In addition, there should not be much homework so that repetition does not start to be boring.There should not be many theoretical tasks, for example, on the operation of some physics apparatus, but there should be more tasks important for general knowledge.For example related to geography [... ] Digital fabrication could also be utilized.For example, mechanics could be taught with cogs, and these could be manufactured with a 3D printer, for example, so that learning takes place even when designing them.In addition, there could be a machine that can manufacture a particular material based on what characteristics it should have, or it could at least find a suitable material for some purpose."(W3 Padlet.)Table 6 summarizes all ideas documented in the Padlet from week three.
In general, the classroom prototype presented in Fig. 3 followed the same patterns as previous weeks, with a laser cut MDF box using boxes.py,laser cut tables, vinyl decals and 3D-printed items found online (cogwheel and a machine to manufacture materials).However, this week the pair leaves out electronics.They also think about what could be added to the classroom that were not present in the previous prototypes: "We thought about what kind of things we could include in the classroom that were not done last week" (W3 report).New elements are added, however, as the teens modify the class design to include a door and windows.The walls and floor are painted, and the pair show off the results on social media, with the caption: "Today we cut the last piece of the wall and painted the walls of the future classroom!"(W3 Instagram).They 3D model a yellow sphere representing a planetarium with fusion 360 and print it out with a different 3D printing technology than previous weeks.They also include post-it notes in the prototype for further explanations (See Fig. 3, e.g., the one next to the planetarium reads: "The outer layer is a screen for presenting").
Researcher reflections.Again, the teens came up with interesting ideas but had difficulty depicting them.To overcome this, Christian and Danielle included post-it notes, they explain to represent: "information about functionality we could not build into the prototype" (Weekly report).We note these notes were also used to represent things they could have included with relative ease, like "computers used to design things that can be fabricated using DF devices" (post-it note on the desk).When working, teens faced hurdles.For example, they tried many times to 3D print the planetarium, but prints failed.After they painted the walls, pieces did not fit.Danielle explains to us in online chat: "We have been lasercutting pieces for the classroom, but for some reason they do not really fit We are trying to figure it out!" (W3 WhatsApp).In online discussions with researchers, teens seemed unwilling or unable to elaborate on what they thought went wrong, despite us trying to explain why trial and error was a good way to learn.In their weekly report they however mention: "the problem was the painted wall and the wrong base.We tried sanding the walls, but it didn't work.We thought it through and tried to fix the base.It didn't work, and we modelled a new base instead when we figured it" (W3 report).In our observations we noted that as Christian assumed the mentor role, Danielle was often informing us about what was happening, mainly using chat.Mentoring teen reflections.In his reflective essay, Christian says he understood the project purpose.He feels he and Bobby, however, focused too much on "traditional classroom stuff" and he tried to move his thinking forward during mentoring week.He mentions working with two 3D printing technologies, two laser cutters, vinyl cutter, and electronics.He used design software like Inkscape, Blender and Fusion360, and software to control machines.Ideating and fabricating or assembling the prototype had been challenging, while teaching the newcome was easy for him.Learning the functioning of 3D printers had given a new perspective to how objects are structured.3D printers utilizing layers reminded him of integrals in mathematics which had been useful when modelling.He learned about electronics, and 3D printers and felt it will come in handy later.He received help from FabLab staff and mentions he also learned how to instruct other people on the laser cutter: "I learned also how to assist other FabLab users to use e.g., the laser cutter".He explains being happy with his performance and that he had fun in FabLab.
W4: Future chemistry class and post-it notes bridging ideas with practice Ideas and outcomes.Danielle mentored Evan, who is in junior high school.In his interview he explained taking handicraft with technology emphasis and has experience of 3D-printing, laser cutting and electronics.Danielle and Evan ideate a chemistry class using the same collaborative process as the weeks before.In their Padlet they document e.g., the following: "The classroom could utilize VR for studying.Every student would have VR glasses, and the teacher could use them to illustrate things being taught, and students could explore more easily.[...] Studying could have a balance between theory and practice.The aim would be to make tasks more in line with the challenges of working life […] group projects with practice would be prominent, rather than memorizing things.[...] The class could also have DF machines used to manufacture things related to teaching.Students could, for example, design and 3D print molecular formulas and learn while doing."(W4 Padlet) Table 7 summarizes all ideas documented in the padlet from week four.The prototype this week (See Fig. 3) follows the format from previous weeks.It is built in an MDF box created with boxes.py.The pair painted the walls and floor, cut a vinyl text decal, and laser cut and glued tables.The class includes 3D-printed VR glasses using an existing model.They make a social media post about the glasses with the caption: "Today we got the VR glassed model out of the 3D printer for our prototype -We also had some time for our own projects and tinkering!" (W4 Instagram).There is also a laboratory space in their prototype, prepared from cardboard.Again, post-it notes are used, offering explanations of practices, e.g., "there are not many students so teachers can consider individuals' needs when teaching", but also representing concrete objects they did not fabricate, e.g., "computers", or "3D printer".The pair explains, these are taken from the weekly padlet: "We wrote down ideas from the padlet and added them as a part of the future chemistry class prototype" (W4 report) Researcher reflections.Danielle and Evan explained to us they ideated also other subjects but had difficulty and settled on chemistry.They did not express difficulties while prototyping.They finished early and we reminded them of a tutorial for an embroidery machine they had expressed interest in.However, Danielle explains they had their heart set on laser: We have nothing to do.We can't think of anything new to the chemistry class and we can't do own projects now the laser is taken (W4 WhatsApp).Instead, teens film and edit simple instructional videos for laser and vinyl cutters, prompted by researchers.
Mentoring teen reflections.In her reflective essay, Danielle explains she understood she should ideate without a filter and get familiar with processes to instruct a newcomer.She used a laser and vinyl cutters, Gimbal video editing software and Instagram.Inkscape and laser were easy, and she enjoyed making social media posts.Instructing the newcomer and creating the prototype were challenging as she felt she lacked experience and did not consider herself very technical: "It was challenging using Inkscape and the equipment well enough to get the newcomer started.I am not technically oriented, so it felt difficult to make the objects".Ideation was also challenging, especially as a mentor: "I was frustrated sometimes not to be able to come up with new ideas.[…] Especially during the second week it was hard.I felt I had already used all my ideas".She learned to 2D design for laser and vinyl, and describes learning as gradual, as for saving materials, for example.She had designed herself a laser cut necklace.She learned to take initiative training the newcomer, and to speak English bravely.She had received help from peers: "It was nice to have partners that knew how to use the technology and equipment".She was also supported by FabLab staff and gave credit to group chat with researchers: "WhatsApp worked really well, every time I messaged someone answered me".She felt proud of herself and being able to guide another in using the FabLab: "I am happy in how I succeeded!My goal was to be able to guide a new summer employee (=so to learn using the machines and software) and I succeeded in it."She added wanting to visit later for personal projects.
W5: Pieces do not make a whole.
Outcomes.During the last week Evan was joined by Andy who worked on the project during week one.As both had already worked on the project, there was no ideation, instead they were to finalize group work, and produce a video introducing FabLab.They started working together but after a few days, Andy stayed home editing the video.Evan remained in FabLab in case Andy needed shots redone, or new material and the teens communicated through teams: "Andy stayed home to edit, we had a Teams connection going, so we could use both of our suggestions and ideas in the video […] One clip of the laser was missing, so Evan shot it, and sent it to Andy who downloaded it and attached it to the final video" (W5 report).Teens reflected on the prototypes and noticed they cannot be connected as they were different shapes and sizes.(See Fig. 3.) The researchers suggested they could work on it, but from their online communications the teens came across as reluctant and tired.
Researcher reflections.Because the teens split up to make the videos, Evan had to wait a lot, which might have been boring.In our meetings, we encouraged him to explore the FabLab space and do personal projects.He had a LED lamp at home and made new images for it.Evan was the only one who did not have a chance of taking the lead on his second week.
Mentoring teen reflections.In his reflective essay, Andy says the instructions provided for the internship clear, and he enjoyed the freedom to work as he saw fit.He used laser and vinyl cutters, 3D printer and explored electronics.He used software like Inkscape and Premier Pro for video editing.Starting ideation from scratch was challenging: "It was challenging as we were the first pair and there was no previous class to look at and take inspiration from".As fun or enjoyable Andy mentions video editing that he was good at and found interesting.He felt editing videos provided valuable experience.He got help from his partner and FabLab staff.He was happy with his performance, especially concerning videos, although he mentions they were not perfect as time was limited.He found DF useful in case he wants to make something for himself.In his reflective essay Evan says that using a laser cutter had been easy as he had previous experience of it.He had learned new things about Inkscape and the vinyl cutter.Evan felt the skills would come in handy if he needed to make something in the future.It had been difficult to generate new ideas: "Ideation was challenging because three pairs had already ideated the school before".Still, he was "relatively happy" with the results.

Nexus analytical insights
In this section, we discuss how the teens' historical bodies, discourses in place and interaction order were at play when they shaped their ideas and outputs in a collaborative making project that we presented unfolding in the previous section.Special attention is given to how they together, working in pairs, shared expertise, and provided support for each other as support from researchers was kept minimal.
4.2.1 Historical body.In the making project, teens drew on their previous experiences, familiar practices, and their understandings deriving from actions performed by a range of social actors and communities, i.e., their past merged in their historical bodies [57].During action, they engaged in sense making and gained new experiences, which again contribute to the further transformation of their historical bodies.The personal backgrounds related to their educational histories (e.g., study background and familiar educational environments and practices), life phase (e.g., age) and interests and strengths gave them ground for acting in the making project.
Personal dispositions, interests, and strengths.Great developmental changes are emerging in the teens' lifeworld, which may affect their approach to making.During the internship, teens gravitated towards tasks they had expressesed having interest in or experience of in their starting interviews.For example, Andy took eagerly part in video editing that was his hobby, and something he wanted to pursue, Danielle who felt she was not technically inclined enjoyed updating social media, and Christian who was interested in coding and robotics wanted to learn about Arduino.Looking at the reflective essays written by the teens at the end of their working time, it became clear that lacking support, they seemed to enjoy tasks that they were familiar with or became involved in activities they expressed as their strength.This may be due to them being able to show their expertise and knowledge there, especially because this was the first summer job for most.These were also tasks they could complete in a meaningful way and experience success.From the perspective of establishing new practices, this is controversial.On the one hand, being able to draw on one's strengths and pursue one's interests broadens the individual's expertise in these matters.On the other hand, the potential of novel trajectories and expanding one's skills and competences may remain unexplored.Thus, the historical body does not perhaps undergo great changes and the aims of making are not fully met in the absence of support which promotes exploring making activities outside participants' comfort zone.
Educational histories.In addition to their expressed interests and strengths, we can saw an important aspect of the teens' historical bodies arise from their educational background as all had gone through [Country anonymized] basic education, which puts emphasis on freedom, responsibility, and agency.Student-centred methods are employed widely and multidisciplinary learning modules involving projects and teamwork are included in the national curriculum.Nevertheless, print-oriented practices are strong in school, and there is variety in how technology has become integrated into pedagogical action.Andy and Bobby were the most practice-oriented pair, due to their background in vocational college where studies stress learning by doing and project-based learning.Christian, who studied advanced math reflected on how this allowed him to better understand the functioning of 3D printing.Everyone found free ideation difficult, perhaps as they were used to the structure provided at school.In the end they made the ideation their own -turning it into a collaborative process.When ideating, teens were asked to focus on spaces and DF, yet they focused a lot on thinking on how practices in the future school could be improved.Here, their historical bodies involving experience from large teacher-led classes and subject-based curriculum gave them ground for envisioning how group sizes would be smaller, and there would be more freedom to select electives.In other words, they hoped their interests would be better considered.When transforming ideas into prototypes, familiar aspects of school gained foothold.For example, spaces produced during the unfolding of the future school project resembled those found in schools today, with DF technologies somehow represented in the space as an add-on like the role of technology has often been found to be in current school.In general, teens focused ideating classrooms for traditional STEM subjects: math, chemistry, physics, and technical class.In terms of historical body, this could be related to which topics they perceive technology and DF to relate to.
Technical skills.Furthermore, teens had variable degrees of familiarity with technology relevant for making and their individual repertoires of applications and tools were different.When ideating, they came up with ideas on tackling things they found challenging based on their current skillset (e.g., automating 3D modelling mentioned during W2).To a degree, changes in prototypes also arose from their skillset: For example, during the first weeks, the participating teens were interested in electronics and Arduino, which were also implemented in prototypes.Electronics, however, were not present later on in the project.This might be because Danielle, who joined week three, felt she was not a technical person, and the focus of her activities was elsewhere, like social media.Instead, changes emerged in the prototype as painted walls, and post-it notes as a workaround to represent ideas teens lacked skills to create.Teens nevertheless knew how to use each other's skills as a resource in teamwork: Not everyone needed to participate in all tasks, for example Danielle mentions in her reflective essay being happy being paired with more technical people who can guide and teach her.Allowing teens to work independently in FabLab allowed their technical skills to grow during the working period and in the end, all reflected learning new valuable things about DF.E.g., Danielle and Christian both expressed pride in their final essays about being able to instruct new participants and other FabLab users their skillset grew.

Discourses in place.
Considering the discourses in place circulating in FabLab, the (emerging) prototype depicted in Fig. 3  there.It was a concrete item through which they could relate with their foreign surroundings.It also enabled them to orientate to the activities expected of them, supporting the collaborative approach they developed to the work.It is also a good example of artefacts being treated as items of frozen action, products of social action and discourses across sometimes long timescales as in the case of the architecture of an old school building [50,57].Similarly, the tools used as mediational means in the FabLab of diverse origin, linked to different discourses, familiar for the participating teens.
Openness and invitation to hands-on work.Due to its design, the FabLab can be seen to work as an introduction to the discourses of DF.The glass wall depicted in Fig. 2 provided visual access to passers-by in combination with the signs saying it was an open space to enter.People working there were on stage for others and acted as examples working with DF, portrayed as normal activity for viewers.A competing discourse emphasizing the need for special expertise arose from the visibility of the expensive-looking, big and, therefore, maybe intimidating machines, appearing unapproachable at first glance.The use of machines unfolded gradually for makers as they proceeded in their tasks and put machines into action.Machines and tools were, in other words, imbued with meaning emerging in use.
FabLab as a mundane working space.The discourses in place at the FabLab mediated the message of openness and invitation to hands-on work, encouraging people to believe doing something in an environment full of machines and tools would be possible for anyone.It was an environment characterized by clutter: hand tools and scraps of materials could be observed scattered around.Upon closer inspection, the machines had signs of wear.The materials and tools, in other words, were there to be used.This space was not pristine, but a space where practical hands-on work was accomplished.A spotless place of laboratory-like conditions conveys the idea of professionalism while the messy space raises the discourses of tinkering, trial and error, and handicraft as essential in making.
Making choices and making effort.There were differences in relation to the teens' inclination to use processes.Most used the processes they were instructed in, including those accomplished by Inkscape and vinyl and laser cutters.Many used a 3D printer, fewer tried 3D modelling.Only a couple were interested in electronics and Arduino.Some mentioned interest in specific processes e.g., Danielle and Evan, who were curious about digital embroidery, however did not seize the opportunity to try them out.This might be due to the differences in these tools and what they require from the user.However, the reasons for such tendences and choices may be diverse.The open space filled with expensive machinery can be scary even if learning by doing is foregrounded, and mistakes are presented to learn.At the end of the week, most pairs expressed being bored, being unable to invent meaningful tasks for themselves.They may have been overwhelmed by the open request by the researchers to "find a nice project and start tinkering" and the wealth of possibilities afforded by the space.With reference to the personal dispositions, interests and skills discussed above (historical body), the choices can be considered in terms of the balance between what is familiar and what is new needing special effort.
Making sense of making.Makers in FabLab needed to make sense of the wide range of tools and their uses.For the teens, it was not immediately obvious how the complex machines and the simple tools go together.The machines communicate a guide is needed in figuring out what to do in the space.Only the chairs and tables present were immediately understandable in terms of function, as were the display shelves.Connections between objects on display and machines were revealed when a person learnt to know how they were made.It is interesting that while teens did not always come up with innovative ways of using the machines, while documenting their ideas in the weekly Padlets they were able to include realities of the space (e.g., room for the machines).Maybe this suggests a surface-level grasp of the concept of DF, which the space itself can afford.They were also able to implement practical matters related to DF in their project (big doors to get machines in, computers for creating designs, a quiet space for staff in the corner) -they picked up on these in the space they were in.The participants' judgement of the site and situation further affects their positioning in relation to each other, the interaction orders emerging in situ [10,18,19].In sense making, the machinery and tools also portrayed limitations for what can be done.In the absence of support, there were restricted resources for connecting reality with imagination.The discourses in place in terms of how the prototypes developed echoed traditional practices and spaces springing from the historical bodies of the teens with their experiences of education (e.g., practices, learning spaces, resources, interactional organization of participants seen in how tables and chairs were placed in prototypes).
4.2.3Interaction order.When considering interaction orders at work in making at the FabLab, it is interesting to observe what shared rules and expectations are used by participants to coordinate their mutual relations, social action and sense making, situated in the space [16,27].
Mutual relationship between peers.The interactions between the teens were polite and considerate in general.As Andy and Bobby knew each other in advance, their collaboration on the project felt easy from the start compared to the teams that we formed out of teens that did not know each other previously.The mentor role was assumed well by all teens as their confidence levels rose.In the course of their work period, teens were able to gain expertise in the making process, the FabLab with its tools and machines and their use, which gave them agency in providing support for new peers taking their turn, and even others visiting FabLab.Thus, even teens who came across reserved and quiet to the researchers at the beginning such as Danielle and Christian, adopted a stronger role when it was their turn to introduce the space and project to newcomers.The organization of the project as a sequence of pairs working in a way allowing a more experienced peer to support the novice in the process was fruitful from the perspective of advancing the apprenticeship relationship between teens.
The interaction order between peers was balanced, organized as collaborative work.Sometimes there was, however, an uneven distribution of tasks between teens, e.g., as participants tried to consider each other's interests and strengths in the project and felt it was not necessary to experiment with all processes.For example, Danielle was glad to let a more technical person show her how 3D modelling and printing work to add pieces to the prototype, and Evan stayed in FabLab doing individual projects while Andy took the lead in video editing.
Researchers' push in making.As for the results of making, after the first week the teens ignored the researchers' written instructions for ideating a future school independently.Instead, they relied on the example set by their predecessors and started collaboration and building on existing constructs.This narrowed down the design process considerably.In other words, seeing what others had done limited creativity in the subsequent phases.Thus, the classroom prototypes ended up following the same pattern: a frame with boxes.py,laser-cut tables and the use of glue, minor elements through 3D printing and a vinyl decal on the wall.Existing experience or interest in specific topics -like electronics -enabled deviation from the norm, like the addition of LED lights.Generally, the prototypes seemed to be normal classrooms with DF elements and machines.However, a look at the Padlets showed they had been innovative, and even focused on ideating future practices, but had difficulties in illustrating the ideas in their designs.A fruitful method to overcome this obstacle was the introduction of post-it notes during week 3, to explain to the viewer what the more abstract functionalities were about.However, teens ended up using them also to represent items they could easily have prototyped.The two-week period was perhaps too fast for them to come up with skills to implement the ideas in practice.There may also have been a disconnection between the concepts of ideating for future school and learning to use the FabLab.This disconnection appears to have widened over time after the beginning contact with a researcher presenting the first pair with the written instructions, which were subsequently discarded.Furthermore, as was seen during week 3 when something went wrong, they might have lacked understanding to explain to the researchers what the problem was.Considering interaction order, the researchers had a hard time sparking creativity through (written) instructions even after they were revised, while inspiration was drawn rather from peers' designs.In the end, without the researchers' push, during the working weeks, each pair focused on creating one classroom, but none considered how to combine them to make "the future school" in the end.The fact their prototypes could not be combined might not have been apparent to anybody else but Andy and Evan who worked during the last week of the project and saw all finished classrooms.
Something similar occurred regarding the final media production (video filming and editing): teens ignored researchers' written instructions which should have led to a video on the outcome of the collaborative future school project.However, the videos they produced showed examples of what they made with the machines, and barely showed anything related to the future school.From the teens' perspective, this is understandable as the material environment with the technical equipment was something new for them, triggering perhaps more personal interest than the researchers' vision of what was supposed to be done.In the end, the focus of the content changed, and researchers encouraged teens to produce videos showing the processes/machines and the FabLab from the teenagers' perspective.
Relations with FabLab staff.While we noted a couple of teens seemed open and relaxed when communicating with us, most of the time their communication with researchers was reserved.Some teens were shy, and perhaps a little nervous due to the employer-employee relationship.They worked on the project as their summer job, which for many was their first experience of working life.This might have caused hesitance to reveal mistakes or to admit ignorance about what had gone wrong for the benefit of presenting oneself as "a good and competent employee".However, based on their reflections, all teens desired and appreciated communication with on-site FabLab staff.They were considered to provide essential help.The reason for why FabLab staff rather than researchers were considered to provide most important support is likely related to the nature of tasks and mode of communication: FabLab staff provided help when a need arose in situ while researchers mostly interacted online, which positioned them as outsiders in terms of the interactional configuration.Contact was made in writing and through video in the communal space upstairs with others present.Teens may have felt awkward to have to speak in that situation.It may also have been challenging to verbalize to researchers where help is needed if, for example a 3D print had gone wrong whereas FabLab staff was present to see their print and process.Furthermore, communication with researchers often had to be in English, whereas with FabLab staff, the teens got to use their native language.
A further aspect to consider is how the teens were introduced to the project.Presenting the project and introducing the idea of making during the first day may have been accomplished in a way resembling the school setting in terms of participants' roles.Teenagers have firm experience of schooling already, and a good grasp of what is expected from them in formal learning situations (see historical body above).The typical interaction order of education is based on the teacher being in charge and distributing activities and turns at talk, which may be expected if projects and teamwork are embedded in the institutional setting.Detaching oneself from this kind of communicative configuration requires effort and support also from those guiding the activities.All in all, what affected the teens' making process was a complex entanglement of interactional dynamics and discourses, both face-to-face and across digital spaces.

DISCUSSION
In the following, we discuss our results and answer our research questions concerning 1) how the participants' backgrounds, interactions and discourses were at play when teens shaped their ideas and outputs in a collaborative making project, and 2) how to consider these factors to support peer learning in collaborative making projects in informal learning situations.We also offer avenues for future research.
Considering historical bodies, we saw how the teens brought their experience from the school system, for example, as a resource for envisioning what a future school would be like.Besides focusing on physical spaces and how DF can be implemented, they ideated solutions to problems they saw in current practices at school or as difficult processes in DF.However, they had a hard time depicting more abstract ideas in their prototypes, which followed the same pattern, and looked like typical STEM classrooms of today.When prototyping, the teens' existing technical skills and interests guided processes they used, and they preferred activities they were familiar with rather than something new.Children's background and experience in relation to materials used are significant and play a vital role in making [36].In our case, choices made may be partly due to them being able to show their expertise and knowledge there, especially as for most this was their first summer job.However, this appears to be a common problem.Students easily stay on familiar ground, which increases disparity within teams: high-achieving students undertake complex tasks and low-achieving ones stay on cutting and pasting cardboard [2,9].Despite reluctance to leave the comfort zone, the teens were able to work quite independently in FabLab advancing their technical skills [11], and we saw their self-confidence rise when they entered the second week and took on a mentor role.In the end, all reflected having learned valuable things about DF.Furthermore, Danielle, who saw herself as a non-technical person, took pride in seeing how much she learned and her ability to instruct a new participant.This is a great outcome as it has been shown that without facilitation, "hacker culture" [9].and stereotype threat [13] can cause underperformance from individuals to whom stereotypes of less ability are attached (in our case, women in makerspaces).[9] Practical implications: Considering participants' historical bodies provides implications for practice.It is important to explore the ground participants' backgrounds and accustomed practices bring with them when thinking of the activities -either drawing them towards what is familiar or pushing them to cross borders to reach for something new.It might be useful to spend time mapping out participants' histories to find a balance between building on strengths and interests in the making project and building new skills.This is essential for ensuring participants' feeling of success as learning is seen to emerge through meaningful participation in action.We see mapping participants' interests, hobbies, and motivations to participate important for helping them come up with meaningful projects.Exploring their background as learners and technology users is also useful, when trying to plan their need for support in picking out and executing a making project.In situations where makerspaces face a shortage of educators or instructors, it may be beneficial to opt for a peer-learning approach.It has been shown to be an effective tool for promoting engagement and building confidence among participants, including those with low technical skills or confidence [58].If opting for peer-learning, activities should be structured so that tasks and responsibilities related to peer education are tailored to the interests or skills of the peer leading the teaching.This can help maximize the impact of peer-learning on participants' engagement and learning outcomes.
A critical point to consider would be to develop the tasks further to broaden the teens' range of imagining in terms of the future school (or whatever is being designed).As the discussion above suggests, the teens had trouble in detaching themselves from their earlier conceptions of school due to their personal experiences of how learning in institutional contexts takes place (design fixation [42]).This may have been affected also by some wordings in the task descriptions referring to classroom spaces (e.g., furniture) thus directing the teens' thinking of the future school primarily to its physical features.In other words, the task could have been stripped from references to how schools are now perceived in terms of shape, participant roles and practices.The fact that all participants have studied in the same city, and hence, have had similar school experience, might have had an impact in the homogeneity of the ideas.
In the delineation of the assignment, it would be good to emphasize the end-result (prototype) should not necessarily be "realistic" but rather "non-figurative" meaning that it can be an abstract representation of the idea.This might lead the participants to detach themselves from the concrete school and prepare something that is a conceptual product, representing actions/practices rather than physical objects.In a way, the group that used the post-it notes to describe something they had not been able to make, is a step towards that direction.In general, turning the nature of the making process more transparent for participants during activities would be important.Instead of focusing only on the concrete object in emergence, a meta-level perspective could be taken to advance the participants' awareness of how their experience and familiar practices from the environment and culture they know (e.g., current school and education) may affect the generation of new ideas (e.g., future school).This would involve making it explicit with the participants how their own past experiences and familiar practices but also those of the others, visible in the material spaces persist when they are trying to envision the future.This would be in line with the aims of NA engaging the research participants in exploring the nexus in focus.
Overall, the examination of participants' backgrounds and accustomed practices, in addition to the promotion of peer-learning, can enhance the design of unstructured education activities in makerspaces, making them more effective and engaging for participants.
Future research: In future research, it would be interesting to delve deeper e.g.into the mainstream discourses of education becoming visible in the participants' work: what school is like, what the relationships between actors is typically, how young people assume agency, how these discourses appear in making projects, and what kinds of pedagogical approaches would help in dissolving the constraining aspects of the past in ideation and making: We believe the success of making is not just a matter of how well the project has been planned as each participant has their own experiences and familiar practices, and they together create new meanings and visions drawing on that background, situated in a particular place, which also is a construction of actors in the past, with their historical bodies.The evolving motives of young people for coming into FabLabs could also be examined in terms of how they affect their work and commitment: when it is for a job or school, something that must be done, and when it is for something that interests them.Teens' work and commitment are complex questions, also due to the interactional relationships with others they work with -if the working atmosphere functions well, motivation and commitment may grow.In the case of high school students, their professional goals may emerge as they are trying to consider what to do in future and whether the making project might provide resources for a future career.The results of this future research might give clues on how to structure peer-learning activities in makerspaces more efficiently.Considering discourses in place, the teens were inclined every week to use in prototyping the same basic DF processes they were familiar with despite their interest in other activities like digital embroidery.They showed interest in the space and diverse processes, but many indicated being bored or not being able to come up with personal projects independently, echoing the results of Hartikainen et al. [32,33].While having trouble in finding new ways of using the processes, they were able to include some practical matters and realities in their designs, suggesting a kind of surface-level grasp of the concept of DF, within the confines of what the space could afford.
Practical implications: It is important to create spaces encouraging sharing skills and ideas.The space should also be appealing to newcomers who might have limited technical experience and trouble building bridges between their imagination and the realities of what can be done in FabLab.Besides the basic processes, the embroidery station may have been inviting because the teens saw familiar-looking equipment with examples of what can be done with them.A similar approach might work even with the bigger machines: If the space allows, displays with example projects by all machines might raise interest and boost creativity.If displays are not possible, a photo poster, or a flipbook of projects with a QR code linking to a gallery or a project repository might be used.Likewise, video tutorials showing how different machines can be operated could help to lower barriers when no mentor is available, and spark ideas for projects.All these proposed solutions would provide affordances [24] for the machines available, helping students map their ideas with the capabilities of each machine.In that way, participants could easily discover the most suitable machine for the task, facilitating converting ideas into products.
Future research: We inspected the competing discourses between maker culture (openness, meaningful activities, peer collaboration, communities of practice) on the one hand, and expertise (acquired elsewhere but also during the training in action) on the other hand, which may have had an impact on the teens' choices related to different processes.We believe this would be an interesting area for further research on developing self-learning and peer-learning curricula for makerspaces in ways that lower the threshold for learners to try new processes.To achieve this aim, it is crucial to better understand how to reduce the effects of self-perceived lack of expertise on learners navigating makerspaces.
Considering interaction order, researcher influence was present during the introduction phase resembling a school setting, while later focus was on peer collaboration, assisted by FabLab staff.We found the teens worked together well and tried to consider each other's skills and interests (their historical bodies) as a resource when distributing tasks similarly as in Iivari et al. [37], for example.All were keen to show off their skills or take on the mentor role when their skillset grew.There was sometimes uneven task distribution also identified in earlier research [32,49].However, whereas in these supported activities the problem had been teens choosing individual activities over group activity, or not having to get adult approval to divide tasks, in this case it was more that participants tried to consider each other's interests and strengths and did not feel it was necessary to experiment with all processes.Teens appreciated the communication with FabLab staff whom they considered to provide essential help in situ.In our case, FabLab staff was paid personnel whose task was to provide support and facilitate the processes and as in [40] interaction between the youth and the staff became natural and fruitful.The communication between researchers and teens remained reserved.This was probably due to the chosen online medium similar to the arrangement during covid restrictions [30], which kept us at a distance from each other.As FabLab staff were present every day, teens got familiar with them, which made communication more easy-going, and the interaction order balanced.Furthermore, while documenting unsuccessful projects is important for the success of collaborative making [18], the teens participating in our project perhaps felt insecure in their situation where they were at the same time employees, learners and research objects, and were reluctant to admit mistakes to their employer (the researchers), or lacked technical skills to explain them.Our results on interaction order differ from those in projects with more support (e.g., [32]), where researchers have emerged as the most important help, and teens have been shy to approach FabLab staff.
When working, the teens made the process their own, quickly dismissing some instructions given to them by researchers and instead interpreted the tasks in a way meaningful for themselves.They, e.g., turned the focus from a future school to classrooms which might have felt more manageable.They also turned individual ideation into collaboration, perhaps as they saw starting from scratch challenging (See Fig. 4).This change both guided and narrowed down their thinking, and led to ideas and processes repeating, and teens being frustrated with their inability to come up with new things to try especially on their second week.They also introduced FabLab spaces and processes to the newcomer companion only after the ideation process, which might also have narrowed down the versatility of the ideas.Finally, they did not directly continue the work of previous weeks but generated a new prototype every week.During the final week, teens realized their prototypes could not be combined.As pointed out by Iivari et al. [38], the emergence of a shared understanding many times waits until the concretization of design ideas, and the fact their prototypes could not be combined might not have been apparent to anybody else but those who worked during the last week and saw all finished prototypes.
Practical implications: Interaction order has highlighted the important role of the FabLab staff.They were not directly implied in the task at hand (some of them even did not know about the future school project at all) but they helped to bridge the gap between teens' ideas and the fabrication of the physical objects.They support the peer-learning providing technical help, even when they were not participating in the project.In that sense, even in a peer-learning approach, still there is a need for instructors, who do not need to be dedicated to the project at hand and might be running other tasks in parallel.Their expertise is clearly required at some points and serve as support to peer-mentors, increasing their confidence.
Future research: Regarding interaction order in situations like this, it would be interesting to examine further how different communicative modes (face-to-face, online through writing or video) influence who is regarded as an authority and what is considered appropriate behavior during a making project.As the above perspectives suggest, the configurations of interaction order between the participants were complex, and reflected authority, familiarity, guidance, and apprenticeship in varying degrees and ways.The project provided a new kind of setting for the participants to make sense of what they wanted to do and what they could do with respect to the others' ideas and interests and the material resources of FabLab space.In the flux of all these aspects, what the teens interactionally and collaboratively produced as the process differed to some extent from the researchers' expectations as Fig. 4 illustrates.An avenue for further research could also be to explore how the teens perceived their roles as mentors.Teens may have different understandings of what belongs to a mentor's tasks in the same way as teachers may have different conceptions of learning and teaching.This affects what mentoring strategies the teens adopt -whether it is a matter of "giving new ideas" as one of the teens expressed in a reflection task, or whether it is about asking the right kinds of questions to assign those being mentored agency to find their own ideas and solutions.The mentor would in this case help in providing support by questions that lead the participant to become aware of the whole process, needing to make decisions, questioning existing understandings of learning, and considering the design task also as broader than modelling the familiar physical environment.Understanding teens' perceived role as mentors and analyzing which roles are more effective in a peer learning setup in a makerspace, might lead to some guidelines that might be provided to peers at the beginning of the session to support their efforts as peer mentors.An important path for research would be how to best encourage the flow of expertise, knowledge and skills from one peer to another in a way contributing to the emergence of a zone of proximal development [70] through peer interaction (growing ability to do things independently and sharing it with others) in FabLab.
Using NA as a theoretical lens enabled us to shed light on complex phenomena under scrutiny.The study drew on different data ranging from long-term observations on the multimodal aspects of the environment and interactions and collaboration between participants, to materials like reflection notes and artefacts created.The analysis encompassed researchers' theoretical insight using nexus-analytical notions, which shed light on the complexity of aspects related to social action.This allowed us to gain a picture of situated interactions, but also of long-term discourses meaningful for making, shaping it in one way or another.In general, our study gives a more detailed picture about the roles of participants in making, either doing it (the teens), facilitating it (FabLab staff and researchers), and provides an example of how familiar discourses of education persist in teens' designs.
This study is subject to two main limitations: the small number of participants (N=5) and the limited geographical variability, as all participants were from the same country, and same city.We chose to keep the number of participants small for this exploratory study, to give us an indepth understanding of their experiences.However, while the practical implications derived from this research provide valuable contributions, further studies with larger and more diverse participant samples would be beneficial to confirm and extend the findings.In addition, our study has some methodological limitations.Besides brief encounters with the teens, the researchers were mainly discussing with them online, and without being able to observe how much time teens spent on each phase, if they worked individually or in pairs, or how their interaction or enthusiasm changed during the week, among others.A more nuanced perspective, preferably drawing on video data, is needed to be able to describe specific instances of peer learning, selfconfidence building, self-motivation levels increasing or decreasing, and the kind of factors that might hinder or facilitate these moments.While our study provides a starting point, more research is needed to examine this complex social action.

CONCLUSION
An overarching aim of our research was to increase researchers' and practitioners' understanding of the multitude of aspects at play in the making process among participants, especially with minimal support, and of the methodological approach to capture such complexity.In our paper, we explored 1) how participants' histories, interactions, and discourses in place are at play when teens shape their ideas and outputs in a collaborative making project with minimal support, and 2) how to consider these factors to better support learning in collaborative making projects in informal learning situations.The study highlights the importance of a range of aspects that not only shaped the teens' design ideas and prototypes, but also the DF processes chosen, and how they made the making process "their own".These aspects involved the teens' background concerning personal dispositions, interests, and strengths, and their educational histories and technical skills.The physical space also played a role, material resources and architecture of FabLab echoing diverse discourses from different timescales and places.Furthermore, the participants' relationships and interactions -with their peers in the project but also with researchers and FabLab staff -contributed to how the project advanced.
The study showed how teens' DF and making arises from a complex entanglement of aspects at play.Teens needed to make sense of what is expected from them as employees in their first summer job, as apprentices learning what making involves, as mentors sharing their expertise with peers trying to translate ideas into concrete products.Although the teens' experience from institutional contexts of learning had its impact on ideation and activities, teens also utilized their freedom in transcending material obstacles and taking the design process to their desired direction.NA with its focus on social action viewed as emerging from the intertwining historical bodies of participants, their mutual interaction orders and discourses in place was a fruitful research strategy to capture the impact of both situated and more distant social actors, actions and discourses for teens' activities during their first summer job in FabLab.
Looking at the teens collaborative making project through the lens provided by Nexus analysis contributed to an increased understanding of the space for action and participants' histories, and interactions on the process, valuable for researchers studying DF and making, and practitioners working in makerspaces and FabLabs with different user groups.We provided avenues for future research even beyond making, in exploring collaboration practices, the relationship between design and hands-on work, and the mediation of skills and knowledge between participants with different degrees of expertise needed in the work, not only considering situated interactional but also more distant discursive dimensions.In making, as in any social action, participants bring along their earlier beliefs and understandings, to compete with new ones, either leading to something new or sticking to the familiar.This is an area that requires more attention in future research.On a more practical level, our work contributes to a deeper understanding both on how to better include teens into non-guided and community-driven maker practices which are likely very different from what they are used to considering their experience from formal education settings, and on how to support learning in collaborative making projects in informal learning situations, also with respect to the role of the different actors and the material environment contributing to how the collaborative project proceeds.

APPENDIX APPENDIX A: Instructions and reflection prompts for summer workers
The future school project

•
During the summer job, you will ideate and prototype what school of the future might be like.You can think about the school space and related objects, furniture, etc. in your plans.But also how digital fabrication be utilized in different subjects.
• The idea will be developed collaboratively.Every summer employee gets to develop the ideas from previous weeks and add parts to the prototype and ideas to the idea bank • Discuss your ideas with your partner and develop them further!
• Draw concept images of the future school • A concept image is the first outline of the product to be designed.it consists of images of the product, and descriptions of how it works.
• Task: Draw a concept image of the future school, adding explanations of what is there!
• Write a scenario of a future school day • When designing new products, it's important to think about how users will do their tasks when a new product is in use.User tasks are often described by using scenarios.They can be text-based or pictorial presentations, like comics or videos.Scenarios involve a specific goal that the user wants to achieve.
• Task: Write a scenario (i.e., story) about the school day of the future and school.
• Build a prototype Teen project documentation.During the weeks, the teens documented their progress on different social media.In the snippet from week 2 below, Christian is discussing their ideas of including an Arduino in the design, and perhaps using some sensors with the researchers (Hector and Charlotte).9/6 13:39 -Christian: Is there an Arduino available for our project?We are thinking of doing a air quality monitor for the classroom.9/6 13:40 -Hector: Yes Here they are explaining the tasks they did during one day during week 3 of the project , which include cutting a wall to their classroom prototype, and ideating a future physics class.They also created some tables with the laser cutter and a hot glue gun and 3D printed some objects, like the yellow planetarium sphere visible in the photo.The teens comment they feel the day has been productive Teen weekly reports.The extract below from week 2 of the project illustrates the contents of the teens' collaborative weekly reports to the researchers, where they detail their activities throughout the days.
On Monday, we got acquainted and learned how to use programs and devices.The laser cutter was used to make keychains.In addition, the design of a classroom for future technical work began.The floor and walls were made in the classroom.On Tuesday, a 3D printer was made for the technical work class with the help of a 3D printer, and parts of tables were cut from plywood with the help of a laser cutter.In addition, an LED light strip and the "Technical work" text were put in the category.On Wednesday, the floor and walls of the classroom were painted, and stools were provided in the classroom.A screen was also attached to the front wall of the classroom, which was printed using a 3D printer that supports two-color.On Tuesday and Wednesday, windows were also made in the classroom and a picture of a saw made of vinyl was added to the wall.
Teen reflective essays.At the end of their working periods, the teens also wrote individual reflections where they detailed e.g.what they did, what they learned, what was easy or difficult, and how they feel they succeeded in their tasks.The below extracts from Bobby and Danielle exemplify the contents of their essays.
During my summer job, I laser cut different pieces, 3D Printer pieces, cut vinyl and practiced Arduino.I learned a lot of new things, how to use programs and honed old skills.I understood very well what the project was looking for and the instructions were clear in my opinion.I received great help and a big thank you to Mike, who knows all the devices in FabLab.I used everything from a hot glue gun to a hammer and everything in between tools.Of the programs, I used Inkscape, Sketchup, Blender, Cutstudio and preform.I practiced 3D printing, laser cutting and Arduino.I probably learned the most with 3D printing and Arduino, as I was already familiar with laser cutting.Understanding and using 3D Printing programs was challenging because it was a bit challenging and complicated.It was easy to laser cut and modeling it, because I had done it before.I am satisfied with my summer job period, as I was active and interested in learning new things.I could use the skills I learned in future studies and further plans... [Bobby] .. I learned how to use Inkscape so that I could use it to implement the two-dimensional projects I wanted for laser and vinyl cutters.I learned how to cut with laser and vinyl cutters and learned how to handle 3D printed objects after printing.I learned how to use gimbal in video shooting.During my summer job, I learned to be a better laser cutter user; For example, how to better save material, etc.During my summer job, I learned to take more responsibility when I had to guide a new summer employee.I also learned to dare to speak English more boldly when talking to Hector in English!...[…] "What was challenging?Hmm.It was challenging to learn from zero in a week how to use Inkscape and the equipment so that I could guide a new summer employee at the beginning of this summer job period.It was challenging, as I'm not so technology-oriented, so physically prototyping seemed difficult, luckily, I was paired with people who knew how to use technology and equipment better.Especially at the beginning of the second week of summer work, brainstorming was challenging.It felt like I had already exhausted all the ideas the previous week… [Danielle] Researcher field notes.Researchers took field notes using online tools such as teams and WhatsApp concerning e.g. on the FabLab space, the teens progress, their interactions with each other and other actors involved whenever they had a chance to observe or interact with the teens.In the following extract from notes from week 2 documented in WhatsApp, researchers discussing their initial impressions from teen interactions -Namely how bobby started to mentoring Christian during his first day in the project: [12:50, 7/6] Charlotte: I left at 11 but I Think they are able to work together ok.[12:51, 7/6] Maria: Great! [12:51, 7/6] Charlotte: We'll see.Christian seems to be more pedant.Reading instructions and asking questions.[13:18, 7/6] Hector: I left but they are working good I think Notes were also taken from daily follow-up meetings with the teens that were carried out online in Teams, or face-to-face.In the following extract documented in Teams environment during week 3, the researchers are discussing after the follow up meetings problems that have arisen in the teens process, and reflecting on the ideation process turning into a collaboration: [15.14]Ivy: We had the meeting, they had been doing some furniture for the school with the lasercutter, but the pieces were too tight to fit together.then they tried to 3D print a sphere for a physics class that they had ideated earlier.They ran into some difficulties with that -Apparently was not structurally sound so it collapsed or smth but [FabLab instructor] is helping them.Ideation had morphed into this collaboration.Danielle had started independently, but had difficulty with the concept picture and free ideating.Then they had started to develop the physics class based on Christians's thoughtwork.Danielle had also started to write the scenario, but I guess it was abandoned when they started collaborating [15.17]Maria: Well, it is early for her yet, just two days.She needs to get in the mood, building from the previous [15.19]Ivy: But it is interesting, that they are morphing into this collab -like Christian knew she was supposed to do the ideation idependently (like he did last week?) and then they should compare Danielle's plan to what has previously been done to see if there are new ideas they could implement -but then he decided to join her in the ideation at this phase and already present to her what they had done [15.19]Ivy: So one wonders if that helps her ideation, or steers it to a certain direction [15.22]Ivy: also that they were reluctant to report or photograph these "mistakes" [15.22]Charlotte: we could summarize the instructions again and again.Like which part they are supposed to do together and which not.Those things can be easily forgot [15.23]Ivy: I tried explaining to them that to us it is very useful thing to know what kind of difficulties they have, because it helps us help others.and that it is useful for them as they learn by doing and experimenting [15.25]Ivy: we did go through the [instructions and reflection prompts] document yesterday, and these individual tasks. .But I think Christian is just eager to take leadership in a way.Which is good.Last week he was the more quiet one, this week he has taken charge Received January 2023; revised July 2023; accepted November 2023.

Fig. 2 .
Fig. 2. From left to right, Machine space, main entrance, and computer space

Fig. 3 .
Fig. 3. Prototypes of each week W1: Math class and an active team of two friends Ideas and outcomes.The project started with Andy and Bobby.According to their interviews, the pair are friends, both studying electricity and automation in a vocational college.The pair's ideas documented on the weekly Padlet related to space include bigger classrooms and -Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 91.Publication date: April 2024.
can be seen to have become a signpost for the teens to be PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 91.Publication date: April 2024.

Fig. 4 .
Fig.4.Flow of the ideation and making process as planned above) and in practice (below).Phases differing from the planned in bold frame.Phases that did not always occur in dotted frame.

Table 2 .
The steps and foci of data analysis

Table 4 :
Future school and math class ideas LED lights that are easily adjusted and save energy Digital fabrication Each school has a DF space Teachers know how to use the space in teaching and to instruct students Students create objects for school and leisure like pen cases or phone covers DF is used in math to model and print geometric shapes Practices Smaller class size, teachers focus on individuals and improve quality of teaching More group workStudents are freer to select electives which makes it easy to apply for further education.More graduate from universities and polytechnics.

Table 5 :
Future technical class ideas Teacher's workstation in front of the class Touch screen to exemplify topics being taught or for students' designs Sensors measuring student's activity level and adjust temperature Sensors measuring air quality and UV lights cleaning air Automatic lighting systems beneficial to health and concentration Noise cancelling technology in the loudest parts of the class Woodworking benches and stools lifted on the tables to save space Sensors monitoring stress levels helping identify stressful tasks Digital fabrication 3D printer, laser cutter and machine used to work metal 3D modelling is easy, you think of objects to create a model Machines are controlled with thoughtsPracticesSensors allowing tasks to be developed less stressful and increase productivity

Table 6 :
Future physics class ideas

Table 7 :
Future chemistry class ideas Classes are not too long so you don't grow tired of concentrating Tasks are varied so you don't get bored Making the Future School 91:17 PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8, No. CSCW1, Article 91.Publication date: April 2024.

•
You are all experts in schooling, so we encourage you to think and brainstorm without a filter.No idea is impossible.You don't have to think about the feasibility of ideas all ideas are good!•Theother summer employee will guide you to the beginning in the use of various software and equipment.Later, you will be able to teach the next summer employee how to use the device/software you have learned!You can also ask FabLab employees for help!
• Watch a video about design fiction: [URL]• Task: Ideate independently about the school of the future and how digital fabrication could be used there.Write your ideas on a padlet: [URL].