Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teachers’ perceptions of a maker-centered professional development experience: a multiple case study

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The emergence of the maker movement has prompted educational researchers to consider the affordances of maker-centered learning activities in formal K-12 environments. These affordances however will only be realized if teachers are provided effective learning experiences in this area. This qualitative holistic multiple case study examined two groups of in-service K-12 teachers’ perceptions of a maker-centered professional development (PD) situated in a commercial makerspace. The aim of the PD was to expose teachers to elements of the maker movement in an initial effort to assist them in integrating maker-centered learning elements into their curriculum. Utilizing individual interviews and personal reflections of participants (n = 23) in an 8-week maker-centered PD, this study examined their perceptions of mindset changes and the effects this experience may have on their teaching practice. Qualitative analysis of the data suggests participants perceived growth of their own maker-mindsets, and increased interest and confidence in implementing maker-centered learning activities in their classrooms. Findings reveal that both teachers’ mindsets as well as operational elements should be considered in preparing educators to implement maker-centered learning activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference? Retrieved January 21, 2016 from http://learning.media.mit.edu/content/publications/EA.Piaget_Papert.pdf

  • Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beavers, A. (2009). Teachers as learners: Implications of adult education for professional development. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 6(7), 25–30. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v6i7.1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, R. Q., Bull, G., Browning, C., Thomas, C. D., Starkweather, K., & Aylor, J. H. (2010). Use of digital fabrication to incorporate engineering design principles in elementary mathematics education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 167–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers and Education, 59(3), 1054–1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, S. L., Quek, F., Bhangaonkar, S., Ging, A. B., & Sridharamurthy, K. (2015). Making the maker: A means-to-an-ends approach to nurturing the maker mindset in elementary-aged children. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 5, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2015.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clapp, E., Ross, J., Ryan, J. O., & Tishman, S. (2017). Maker-centered learning: Empowering young people to shape their worlds. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. D. (2017). Maker principles and technologies in teacher education: A national survey. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(1), 5–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. D., Huprich, J., Jones, W. M., & Smith, S. (2017). Educators’ perceptions of a maker-based learning experience. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(5), 428–438. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-06-2017-0050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. D., Jones, W. M., & Smith, S. (2018). Preservice and early career teachers’ preconceptions about making in education. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2017.1387832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Compton, M. E., Martin, K., & Hunt, R. (2017). Where do we go from here? Innovative technologies and heritage engagement with the MakerBus. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 6(April), 49–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2017.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations Technology Governance Globalization, 7(3), 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1162/INOV_a_00135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (2013). The Maker Mindset. In M. Honey & D. E. Kantor (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 7–11). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (2016). Forward. In K. Peppler, E. R. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1, pp. ix–x). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, E., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–505. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, D. B., & Hansen, A. K. (2015). Balancing collaborative and individual work: An example of a school-based maker education project. In 5th annual conference on creativity and making in education, FabLearn 2015. Retrieved March 5, 2018 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319119971_Balancing_Collaborative_and_Individual_Work_An_Example_of_a_School-Based_Maker_Education_Project.

  • Hidi, S., & Renninger, A. K. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hira, A., Josyln, C. H., & Hynes, M. M. (2014). Classroom makerspaces: Identifying the opportunities and challenges. In 2014 IEEE frontiers in education conference proceedings (pp. 1–5). Retrieved November 10, 2018 from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=7044263.

  • Hjorth, M., Smith, R. C., Loi, D., Iversen, O. S., & Christensen, K. S. (2016). Educating the reflective educator: Design processes and digital fabrication for the classroom. In 6th annual conference on creativity and making in education, FabLearn 2016 (pp. 26–33). https://doi.org/10.1145/3003397.3003401.

  • Irie, N. R., Hsu, Y.-C., & Ching, Y.-H. (2018). Makerspaces in diverse places: A comparative analysis of distinctive national discourses surrounding the maker movement and education in four countries. TechTrends, 63, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0355-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, W. M., Cohen, J. D., Schad, M., Caratachea, M., & Smith, S. (2020). Maker-centered teacher professional development: Examining K-12 teachers learning experiences in a commercial makerspace. Tech Trends, 64(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00425-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, W. M., Smith, S., & Cohen, J. (2017). Preservice teachers’ beliefs about using maker activities in formal K-12 educational settings: A multi-institutional study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49(3–4), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1318097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kali, L. (2018). Afterschool educators' teaching practices through tinkering: Nurturing student collaboration, engagement, and development of self confidence. Master’s Theses (p. 1146). https://repository.usfca.edu/thes/1146.

  • Kim, S. H., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2017). Towards a stronger conceptualization of the maker mindset: A case study of an afterschool program with squishy circuits. FabLearn. https://doi.org/10.1145/3141798.3141815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, K. P. (2002). Educational technology professional development as transformative learning opportunities. Computers & Education, 39(3), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00073-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, M., & Associates. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Cerreto, F. A., & Lee, J. (2010). Theory of planned behavior and teachers’ decisions regarding use of educational technology. Educational Technology and Society, 13(1), 152–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, S., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 89, 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. M. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachal, J. (2002). Andragogy’s detectives: A critique of the present and a proposal for the future. Adult Learning Quarterly, 52(3), 210–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00499.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regalla, L. (2016). Developing a maker mindset. In K. Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1, pp. 256–271). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlegel, R. J., Chu, S. L., Chen, K., Deuermeyer, E., Christy, A. G., & Quek, F. (2019). Making in the classroom: Longitudinal evidence of increases in self-efficacy and STEM possible selves over time. Computers & Education, 142, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, M., Bower, M., Falloon, G., Forbes, A., & Hatzigianni, M. (2019). By design: Professional learning ecologies to develop primary school teachers’ makerspaces pedagogical capabilities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 12060–21274. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svarovsky, G. N., Bequette, M. B., & Causey, L. (2016). Making connections: Exploring culturally embedded making practices and perceptions (Work in Progress). In Paper presented at 2016 ASEE annual conference & exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.25660.

  • Taylor, B., & Kroth, M. (2009). Andragogy’s transition into the future: Meta-analayis of andragogy and its search for a measurable instrument. Journal of Adult Education, 38(1), 22–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theisinger, D. L. (2017). A phenomenological investigation of selected teachers’ informal and incidental technology-related learning (Publication No. 10274498). Doctoral dissertation, The College of William and Mary, ProQuest LLC.

  • Trotter, Y. D. (2006). Adult learning theories: Impacting professional development programs. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 72(2), 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA

    W. Monty Jones

Authors
  1. W. Monty Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. Monty Jones.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of (Virginia Commonwealth University) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Interview questions

Interview question

Example probing sub questions

Research question addressed

How did it make you feel to try something new at (Makerspace)?

Did trying something new at (Makerspace) inspire you to try something new with your students?

How will it make you feel if a student cannot complete a task in your classroom during a Maker centered activity?

RQ1 How do K-12 teachers perceive mindset changes as a result of their participation in a makerspace focused summer professional development opportunity?

Has making or creating an object helped you understand something besides what you set out to create?

 

RQ1 How do K-12 teachers perceive mindset changes as a result of their participation in a makerspace focused summer professional development opportunity?

How could you apply what you learned at (Makerspace) to your subject area?

Are there any obstacles for you to overcome while using this in your classroom?

RQ2 How do K-12 teachers perceive the effects of participating in a makerspace focused summer professional development opportunity on their future practice?

What is the value of the practices you learned through the professional development at (Makerspace) to you as a teacher?

Are the values easily transferable to the K-12 classrooms?

What might prevent the practices from being transferrable?

RQ2 How do K-12 teachers perceive the effects of participating in a makerspace focused summer professional development opportunity on their future practice?

How could a space like (Makerspace) help students learn? How do you see yourself integrating a makerspace into your teaching practice?

 

RQ2 How do K-12 teachers perceive the effects of participating in a makerspace focused summer professional development opportunity on their future practice?

  1. Makerspace name blinded for confidentiality

Appendix 2: Reflection prompts

  • How much time did you spend at (Makerspace) today?

    • Where did you spend most of your time for the day?

  • Did you learn anything new at (Makerspace) today?

    • Did anyone assist you in learning something new?

  • Did you find yourself struggling with anything today at (Makerspace)?

    • How did you overcome this?

    • Did you use any online resources to assist you in your struggle?

  • Is there anything else you would like to share about your time at (Makerspace) today?

Note: Makerspace name blinded for confidentiality.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jones, W.M. Teachers’ perceptions of a maker-centered professional development experience: a multiple case study. Int J Technol Des Educ 31, 697–721 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09581-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09581-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation