Lessons From the Keene Public Library Little Makers Program – Little Makers

When public libraries serve beyond books, they can become hubs of STEM learning, tinkering, and creative play for children and families. The Little Makers program at Keene Public Library (KPL), New Hampshire is one such example.

Designed for very young children (ages 2 to 6) and their caregivers, the program weaves making, tinkering, and co-learning into library spaces—both in person and virtually.

In this article, we explore the lessons, outcomes, strategies, and challenges that KPL uncovered through Little Makers. We’ll present detailed findings, practices, and ideas you can adapt.

We proceed in sections: background, program design, facilitation & engagement strategies, metrics and outcomes, challenges & adjustments, key lessons learned, a summary table of notable practices, three FAQs, and a conclusion.

• The Little Makers program was launched in 2018 under a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS).
• Its aim was to explore how public libraries can offer engaging maker-centered STEM experiences for children ages 2 to 6 and their caregivers, both in face-to-face and virtual formats.
• Among its dual goals:
  1. Engage early learners in tinkering, making, and STEM activities in an inviting environment.
  2. Increase caregiver awareness, confidence, and use of scientific or maker talk, tools, and practices with children.

• Keene Public Library is a regional public library in a town of roughly 23,000 residents (Keene, NH).
• KPL is also a Family Place Library, one of only two in the state, signaling a commitment to family support and early learning environments.
• KPL also operates the Kingsbury Makerspace, offering tools like 3D printers, laser engravers, CNC, sewing machines, vinyl cutters, and more (for ages 14+ with supervision)
• In its youth services, KPL as of 2022–2023 ran 186 youth programs with 6,350 participants and recorded that its Little Makers toolkit website had 608 unique visitors and 2.1 K page views during the grant period.

• Children aged 2 to 6, together with caregiver (parent or other adult) as co-learners.
• Offered in in-person sessions (every-other Saturday) and adapted for virtual / at-home formats.
• The model emphasises open-ended, playful exploration rather than a rigid curriculum.

• KPL adapted a planning framework that links learning goals → activities → evidence of learning (What we would see, hear) using maker-learning characteristics (playful exploration, open-endedness, authentic materials)
• The program aligns with the Exploratorium Learning Dimensions (e.g. initiative & intentionality, problem solving & critical thinking, development of understanding, creativity & self-expression, social/emotional engagement) as a lens to structure and assess learning.
• Facilitator reflection forms, caregiver interviews, and other tools were included in the KPL Little Makers Toolkit to document and refine practice.

See also  Adapting Little Makers For Rural And Urban Library Settings

• In weeks of in-person making sessions, KPL would introduce one or two tools (hammer, screwdriver, drill, saw, hole punch, etc.) in a controlled, scaffolded fashion.
• Children and caregivers were encouraged to explore, test, and experiment with the tools in a “safe risk” environment. Facilitators carefully modeled use, scaffolded risk, and used language prompts.
• The making space was physically arranged so that more hazardous tools (e.g. wood area) were somewhat cordoned off or at the back to manage traffic and distractions.
• In virtual / at-home modes, weekly asynchronous exploration kits were provided via an online portal (Niche Academy) combining synchronous and asynchronous elements.

• Facilitators in the Little Makers program did not simply “teach” but modeled behavior: patience, open-ended questioning, refraining from over-helping, guiding caregivers in supporting children’s exploration.
• They used scaffolding questions such as: “What’s your plan for …?”“Where will you cut a hole?”“Try using your … and notice what happens.”

  “Why do you think that happened?”

• When children got stuck, facilitators resisted giving direct answers, instead prompting exploration or reflection. For example, when a circuit experiment didn’t light a bulb, facilitators asked the child to hypothesize, try different bulbs, test connections, and draw conclusions.

• One of the key aims was to empower caregivers to engage in STEM talk, confidence with tools, and participatory making.
• Facilitators modeled caregiver-child interactions (scaffolding, questioning, giving time) in sessions so caregivers could adopt similar strategies.
• Caregivers were interviewed or surveyed to understand their attitudes, comfort, and shifts in practice over time.

• Books & literature anchors: KPL linked making activities with picture books or stories, giving children narrative entry points.
• Exploratorium dimensions and scaffolding: facilitators would point to dimensions like “I see you are testing variation” or “I notice you are persisting” in real time, making the learning aspects visible.
• Reflection & sharing: children and caregivers were given time to share outcomes, talk about improvements, failures, redesigns.

KPL carefully tracked outcomes and reflections. Below is a consolidated view of what changed, what evidence was collected, and lessons derived.

From the 2022–2023 KPL annual report: the library successfully completed the Little Makers IMLS grant.
Also, during that report year, KPL’s youth programming counted 6,350 participants over 186 programs.

Together, these metrics demonstrate that the program had community uptake, digital reach, and a documented process of reflection and improvement.

No early childhood maker program is without hurdles. KPL’s team documented the following challenges and how they adapted:

• Introducing tools to 2–6 year olds required careful handling. Some caregivers were hesitant about allowing children to handle tools like drills or saws. KPL mitigated this by scaffolding tool introduction, providing modeling and supervision, and placing tool zones at the back to reduce distraction.
• In one session with circuits, a child struggled to make a bulb light. The caregiver/facilitator had to resist stepping in too soon and guided the child to test, hypothesize, and iterate instead of giving the answer.

• KPL noted that when caregivers stood rather than sat near children, they were more likely to drift away and talk with one another instead of co-learning. To counter this, they added seating near making setups so caregivers could stay engaged.
• Also, using a wind tunnel in early trials revealed the need for more physical space so that making and experimentation didn’t conflict or interfere with other parts of the room.

• Some families wanted more sessions; others found scheduling difficult. KPL offered an every-other Saturday cadence and extended virtual / asynchronous options to add flexibility.
• KPL also worried about long-term sustainability beyond the grant period. They mitigated this via public toolkits, online webinars, and dissemination efforts to allow other libraries to adopt or adapt the model.

See also  Introducing Coding and Robotics to Young Children in Libraries

• With virtual / at-home modes, facilitators had to anticipate material availability, household constraints, and caregiver time. They curated asynchronous kits, paired synchronous check-ins, and offered scaffolding for caregivers facilitating from home.

From KPL’s experience with Little Makers, here are distilled lessons you can apply to library or community-based early maker programming:

1. Caregiver as co-learner is not optional. The success of early maker programs depends heavily on supporting caregivers: modeling interactions, scaffolding questioning, and building confidence.
2. Introduce tools gradually and scaffold risk. Avoid overwhelming with too many new tools; instead, rotate one or two per session, model use, scaffold safety, and provide guided exploration.
3. Physical layout matters. Arrange making zones so caregivers are close, distractions are minimized, and tool zones are safe and delineated.
4. Promote open-ended play + reflection. Frame challenges loosely, allow multiple paths, and embed time to share, discuss what worked, what didn’t, and how to improve.
5. Use reflection & iteration in program design. Collect facilitator reflections, surveys, and caregiver interviews to iterate your program over time.
6. Bridging in-person and virtual modes is possible. KPL’s hybrid adaptation with synchronous and asynchronous elements shows that early childhood making can extend into homes.
7. Share tools & documentation for scalability. A public toolkit, webinars, and open resources help your program become more sustainable and help others replicate.
8. Track qualitative and quantitative evidence. Monitor attendance, iterations, caregiver shifts, website analytics, and learning indicators to evaluate impact.
9. Design for sustainability early. Plan for continuation beyond grant funding by embedding the program in library routines, training staff, and circulating resources.
10. Be patient and trust the process. Early maker learning is iterative, messy, and non-linear—both for children and for program development.

The Little Makers program at Keene Public Library stands as a powerful, research-informed, and reflective experiment in bringing maker education to very young children in a public library setting.

Its dual emphasis on child exploration and caregiver capacity-building, combined with thoughtful facilitation, gradual tool introduction, hybrid adaptation, and reflective iteration, yields lessons of broad value.

If you are a librarian, educator, or maker advocate hoping to engage toddlers, preschoolers, and their families in hands-on STEM, the Little Makers experience offers a roadmap: start with modest materials, scaffold adults alongside children, learn through reflection, and adapt across time and formats.

In doing so, your library or community becomes not just a place of books, but a maker-rich environment where curiosity, confidence, and creativity blossom from age 2 and upward.

Yes—while KPL had IMLS funding, many of the core practices (gradual tool introduction, caregiver engagement, reflection cycles, open-ended making) can be adopted with modest resources. Start small, use recycled materials, and iterate.

Allow scaffolded, supervised access. Introduce one or two tools at a time. Always model correct grip and use. Partition tool zones. Use open-ended scaffolding questions (“What will happen if…?”) rather than fixing mistakes. Ensure caregivers are comfortable guiding children.

Provide asynchronous, low-cost kits (materials easily found at home), short synchronous demos, scaffolded instructions, alternatives for missing materials, and support for caregivers. Use online portals for sharing and feedback to build community across households.