Abstract
Makerspaces aim to revolutionize the current higher education by providing a means for students to be directly involved in many scientific projects and develop various kinds of skills. While researchers have made progress in understanding different makerspaces and the increase of making in education, the reality is that a specific makerspace may be rather different from many other contexts. As makerspace programs expand around universities in Tianjin, China, it needs a robust framework and a construct model to set the foundation for understanding key makerspace elements beyond curriculum, and to be used for research and verification of these experiences to advance work. Therefore, this paper provides the development and explanation of a construct model of influencing factors for makers in the universities applied beyond curriculum. Methods of questionnaire survey, descriptive statistics, multiple linear regression, and correlation analysis were used to explore the influencing factors of makerspace. The results are as follows: the innovation awareness of the maker subject is positively correlated with teamwork; the innovation awareness and teamwork are positively related to the effect feedback of the makerspace; Activating interest in maker activities is positively related to deep research, putting into practice, and precise creation; deep research has a positive correlation with putting into practice, and putting into practice has a direct correlation with precision creation. In maker resources, Internet resources positively correlate with the sharing of university resources, and Internet resources and university resources positively correlate with enterprise resources. In this paper, a novel theoretical framework and a construct model of makerspaces beyond curriculum offered enables us to analyze future practices and the resulting development of future-making.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Code availability
n/a.
References
Adams Becker, S., Freeman, A., Giesinger Hall, C., Cummins, M., & Yuhnke, B. (2016). NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2016 K-12 Edition. Available at: http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2016-nmc-cosn-horizon-report-k12-EN.pdf (Accessed:6 May 2020).
Barrett, T., Pizzico, M., Levy, B., & Robert L. (2015). A review of university maker spaces. Available at: https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/53813 (Accessed:22 May 2020).
Bevan, B., Gutwill, J., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning through stem-rich tinkering: Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Science Education, 99(1), 98–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21151
Bhatnagar, R., Kim, J., & Many, J. E. (2014). Candidate surveys on program evaluation: Examining instrument reliability, validity and program effectiveness. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(8), 683–690.
Caballero-Garcia, P., & Grau-Fernandez, T. (2019). Influence of maker-centred classroom on the students’ motivation towards science learning. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science, 14(4), 535–544. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v11i4.4098
Chu, S. L., Quek, F., Bhangaonkar, S., Ging, A. B., & Sridharamurthy, K. (2015). Making the maker: A means to and 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
Dougherty, D. (2016). Free to Make: How the maker movement is changing our schools, our jobs, and our minds. CA: North Atlantic Books.
Dufva, T. (2017). Maker movement creating knowledge through basic intention. Techne Series A, 24(2), 129–141.
Eum, K. D., Li, J., Jhun, H., Park, J., Tak, S., Karasek, R., & Cho, S. (2007). Psychometric properties of the Korean version of the job content questionnaire: Data from health care workers. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 80(6), 497–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-006-0156-x
Felgueiras, M., Rocha, J., & Caetano, N. (2017). Engineering education towards sustainability. Energy Procedia, 136, 414–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.10.266
Geser, G., Hollauf, E., Hornung-Prähauser, V., Schön, S., & Vloet, F. (2019). Makerspaces as social innovation and entrepreneurship learning environments: The DOIT learning program. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 10(2), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.2478/dcse-2019-0018
Gilbert, J. (2017). Educational makerspaces: Disruptive, educative or neither?. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, 14(2),80–98.
González-González, C. S., & Arias, L. G. A. (2018). Maker movement in education: maker mindset and makerspaces. Jornadas de HCI, IV.
Hamir, S., Maion, S., Tice, S., & Wideman, A. (2015). Constructivism in education. Available at: http://constructivism512.weebly.com (Accessed: 22 July 2020).
Hsu, Y., Baldwin, S., & Ching, Y. (2017). Learning through making and maker education. TechTrends, 61(6), 589–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0172-6
Julian, K. D., & Parrott, D. J. (2017). Makerspaces in the library: Science in a student’s hand. Journal of Learning Spaces, 6(2), 13–21.
Kafai, Y. B., Fields, D. A., & Searle, K. A. (2014). Electronic textiles as disruptive designs: Supporting and challenging maker activities in schools. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 532–556. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.46m7372370214783
Lagoudas, M. Z., Froyd, J. E., Wilson, J. L., Hamilton, P. S., Boehm, R., & Enjeti, P. N. (2016). Assessing impact of maker space on student learning. Available at: https://peer.asee.org/26298 (Accessed: 22 September 2020).
Lanci, S., Nadelson, L., Villanueva, I., Youmans, K. L., Bouwma-Gearhart, J., & Lenz, A. (2018). Developing a measure of engineering students’ makerspace learning, perceptions, and interactions. Available at: https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10087318 (Accessed: 22September 2020).
Lin, M. Z. (2016). The research on maker curriculum in vocational training courses: Taking mechanical classes as an example. Taiwan Education Review Monthly Journal, 5(4), 143–148.
Litts, B. (2015). Making learning: Makerspaces as learning environments. Available at: https://www.informalscience.org/sites/default/files/Litts_2015_Dissertation_Published.pdf (Accessed: 22 September 2020).
Liu, M. Z. (2016). The concepts and practice of maker education- the assorted designs should be concerned about. Taiwan Education Review Monthly Journal, 5(1), 158–159.
Liu, M. Z. (2017). Maker education, operational thinking, programming curriculum-some concepts of teaching design and curriculum. Taiwan Education Review Monthly Journal, 6(1), 138–140.
Maltese, A. (2018). MakEval: Tools to evaluate maker programs with youth. Available at: http://www.adammaltese.com/content/makeval/ (Accessed: 12 September 2020).
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
Martinez, S. (2018). Creativity and making. Available at: http://sylviamartinez.com/blog/ ( Accessed: 18 September 2020).
McKay, C., Banks, T., & Wallace, S. (2016). Makerspace classrooms: Where technology intersects with problem, project, and place-based design in classroom curriculum. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(2), 11–16.
Morgan, P., Cleave-Hogg, D., DeSousa, S., & Tarshis, J. (2004). High-fidelity patient simulation: Validation of performance checklists. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 92(3), 388–392. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aeh081
Oliver, K. M. (2016). Professional Development considerations for makerspace leaders, Part two: addressing “how?”. TechTrends, 60(3), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0050-7
Projectguru. (2019).Reliability test in SPSS using Cronbach alpha. Available at: https://www.projectguru.in/reliability-test-cronbach-alpha/ (Accessed: 19 September 2020).
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach's alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Teaching Systems Lab (2018). Beyond rubrics: Assessment in making. Available at: https://libby.teachingsystemslab.org/projects/beyond-rubrics/ (Accessed: 25 September 2020).
The White House (2014). Building a nation of makers: Universities and colleges pledge to expand opportunities to make. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/building_a_nation_of_makers.pdf (Accessed 22 May 2020).
Weinmann, J. (2014). Makerspaces in the University Community. Available at: https://fabfoundation.org/resource-folder/pdfs/Weinmann_Masters_Thesis.pdf (Accessed: 28 December 2020).
West-Knights, I. (2017). Why are schools in China looking west for lessons in creativity. Financial Times. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/b215c486-e231-11e6-8405-9e5580d6e5fb(Accessed: 21 May 2020).
Wilczynski, V. (2015). Academic maker spaces and engineering design. Available at: https://peer.asee.org/23477 (Accessed: 28 December 2020).
Wong, A., & Partridge, H. (2016). Making as learning: Makerspaces in universities. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 47(3), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2016.1228163
Vuorikari, R., Ferrari, A., & Punie, Y. (2019). Makerspaces for education and training: Exploring future implications for Europe. Available at: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC117481 (Accessed: 28 December 2020).
Funding
This work is supported by a grant from humanities and social science research projects of the Ministry of Education of China (Project No.20YJAZH125) “ Research on the theory reconstruction and practice dimensions of labor education in the digital age”.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The first author planned and designed the study. The second author was in charge of the method, analysis, and results. The third author did the remain of the study. The manuscript was co-authored by three authors.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
n/a.
Consent to participate
Written consent on voluntary and anonymous participation was obtained from all participants.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhan, Q., Chen, X. & Retnawati, E. Exploring a construct model for university makerspaces beyond curriculum. Educ Inf Technol 27, 3467–3493 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10761-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10761-3