Advertisement

Investigating the Impact of a Community Makers’ Guild Training Program on Elementary and Middle School Educator Perceptions of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics)

  • Jennifer Miller-RayEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Transformative STEM learning spaces have grown rapidly in schools, libraries, and museums as “Learning Labs” or “Makerspaces.” This paper introduces an elementary and middle school project-based learning-integrated curricular approach and Makers’ Guild professional development program that introduces participants to STEM career pathways using challenge cards. Makerspaces provide opportunities to assist organizations in efforts to improve teacher attitudes and confidence levels toward STEM and instructional technology. This study investigated a Makerspace professional development program, the Makers’ Guild, provided to teachers within North Texas over the course of a semester and was funded through a NASA Makerspace outreach grant. The research employed a constructionist approach delivered via instructional methods incorporating 2D and 3D technologies during STEM instructional activities within a creative space. Participants reported a statistically significant increases in self-reported competence in technology integration, confidence levels toward integrating World Wide Web, emerging technologies for student learning, teacher professional development, and attitudes toward math, technology, science, and STEM careers.

Keywords

Makerspace STEM Education Training 

References

  1. Alesandrini, K., & Larson, L. (2002). Teachers bridge to constructivism. The Clearing House, 75(3), 118–121.Google Scholar
  2. Ashbrook, P. (2013). The STEM of inquiry. Science and Children, 51(2), 30–31.Google Scholar
  3. Barr, R. (2010). Transfer of learning between 2D and 3D sources during infancy: Informing theory and practice. Developmental Review, 30(2), 128–154.Google Scholar
  4. Bialo, E. R., & Sivin-Kachala, J. (1996). The effectivenss of technology in schools: A summary of recent research. School Library Media Quarterly, 25(1), 51–57.Google Scholar
  5. Christensen, R. (1997). Effect of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and their students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton, TX. Retrieved March 17, 2016, from http://digital.library.unt.edu/explore/collections/UNTETD/
  6. Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2014). The technology proficiency self-assessment questionnaire (TPSA): Evolution of a self-efficacy measure for technology integration. In T. Brinda, N. Reynolds, R. Romeike (Eds.), Proceedings of KEYCIT 2014 – Key competencies in informatics and ICT (pp. 190–196).Google Scholar
  7. Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2015a). The technology proficiency self-assessment 1uestionnaire (TPSA-C21): Evolution of a self-efficacy measure for technology integration. In T. Brinda, N. Reynolds, R. Romeike, & A. Schwill (Eds.), Proceedings of the KEYCIT 2014: Key competencies in informatics and ICT conference (p. 311). Potsdam, Germany: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
  8. Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2015b). Active learning approaches to integrating technology into middle school science classrooms: Reconceptualizing a middle school science curriculum based on 21st century skills. In X. Ge, D. Ifenthaler, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Full Steam ahead: Emerging technologies for STEAM. New York: Springer Academic.Google Scholar
  9. Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2017). Validating the technology proficiency self assessment for 21st century learning (TPSA C21) instrument. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2016.1242391 Google Scholar
  10. Christensen, R., Parker, D., & Knezek, G. (2005). Advances in preservice educator competence and confidence in technology integration: Comparative findings from two Pt3 projects. Integrated technologies, innovative learning: Insights from the PT3 program. Eugene, OR: ISTE.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Cotabish, A., Dailey, D., Hughes, G. D., & Robinson, A. (2011). The effects of a STEM professional development intervention on elementary teachers’ science process skills. Research in the Schools, 18(2), 16–25.Google Scholar
  13. DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Guidelines in scale development. In Scale development: Theory and applications (p. 5191). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Flowers, L. O., Raynor, J. E., & White, E. N. (2012). Evaluation in online STEM courses. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(18), 16–20.Google Scholar
  15. Fourie, I., & Meyer, A. (2015). What to make of makerspaces: Tools and DIY only or is there an interconnected information resources space? Library Hi Tech, 33(4), 519–525.Google Scholar
  16. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of 800+ meta-analyses on achievement. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Hira, A., Joslyn, C. H., Hynes, M. M. (2014). Classroom Makerspaces: Identifying the opportunities and challenges. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE) (pp. 1–5). New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).Google Scholar
  18. Horowitz, S. S., & Schultz, P. H. (2014). Printing space: Using 3D printing of digital terrain models in geosciences education and research. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(1), 138–145.Google Scholar
  19. Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (Eds.). (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world (pp. 1–2). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17–27.Google Scholar
  21. Keengwe, J., Georgina, D., & Wachira, P. (2010). Faculty training strategies to enhance pedagogy-technology integration. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 6(3), 1–10.Google Scholar
  22. Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (1998). Internal consistency reliability for the teachers attitudes toward information technology (TAT) questionnaire. In S. McNeil, J. D. Price, S. Boger-Mehall, B. Robin, & J. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of the society of information technology & teacher education (SITE)’s 9th international conference (Vol. 2, pp. 831–832). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
  23. Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Tyler-Wood, T. (2011). Contrasting perceptions of STEM content and careers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 92–117.Google Scholar
  24. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13–19.Google Scholar
  25. Koh, K., & Abbas, J. (2015). Competencies for information professionals in learning labs and makerspaces. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 56(2), 114.Google Scholar
  26. Kuenzi, J. J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.Google Scholar
  27. Li, Z. Z., Cheng, Y. B., & Liu, C. C. (2013). A constructionism framework for designing game-like learning systems: Its effect on different learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 208–224.Google Scholar
  28. Liddicoat, S. (2008). NASA enriched collaborative STEM K-12 teacher professional development institutes within the California State University system. In 2008 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE) (pp. 14–19). New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).Google Scholar
  29. Matherson, L. H., Wilson, E. K., & Wright, V. H. (2014). Need TPACK? Embrace sustained professional development. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81(1), 45–52.Google Scholar
  30. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.Google Scholar
  31. Murphy, C., Neil, P., & Beggs, J. (2007). Primary science teacher confidence revisited: Ten years on. Educational Research, 49(4), 415–430.Google Scholar
  32. Murphy, T. P., & Mancini-Samuelson, G. (2012). Graduating STEM competent and confident teachers: The creation of a STEM certificate for elementary education majors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(2), 18–24.Google Scholar
  33. Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157–168.Google Scholar
  34. Nadelson, L. S., Seifert, A., Moll, A. J., & Coats, B. (2012). iSTEM summer institute: An integrated approach to teacher professional development in STEM. Journal of STEM Education, 13(2), 69–84.Google Scholar
  35. Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  36. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism (preface). In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism: Research reports and essays, 1985–1990 (pp. 1–11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  37. Park, J., Kim, D.-E., & Sohn, M. (2011). 3D simulation technology as an effective instructional tool for enhancing spatial visualization skills in apparel design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(4), 505–517.Google Scholar
  38. Purpur, E., Radniecki, T., Colegrove, P. T., & Klenke, C. (2016). Refocusing mobile makerspace outreach efforts internally as professional development. Library Hi Tech, 34(1), 130–142.Google Scholar
  39. Russell, A. L. (1995). Stages in learning new technology: Naive adult email users. Computers & Education, 25(4), 173–178.Google Scholar
  40. Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–531.Google Scholar
  41. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  42. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  43. Skaza, H., Crippen, K. J., & Carroll, K. R. (2013). Teachers’ barriers to introducing system dynamics in K-12 STEM curriculum. System Dynamics Review, 29(3), 157–169.Google Scholar
  44. Smith, S. (2014). Through the teacher’s eyes : Unpacking the TPACK of digital fabrication integration in middle school language arts. Journal of Research on Technology Education, 46(2), 207–227.Google Scholar
  45. Stager, G. S. (2013). Papert’s prison fab lab: Implications for the maker movement and education design. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 487–490). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  46. Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., & Roehrig, G. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2(1), 28–34.Google Scholar
  47. Sun, P. C., Finger, G., & Liu, Z. L. (2014). Mapping the evolution of eLearning from 1977–2005 to inform understandings of eLearning historical trends. Education Sciences, 4(1), 155–171.Google Scholar
  48. Tangdhanakanond, K., Pitiyanuwat, S., & Archwamety, T. (2006). A development of portfolio for learning assessment of students taught by full-scale constructionism approach at Darunsikkhalai School. Research in the Schools, 13(2), 24–36.Google Scholar
  49. Tyler-Wood, T., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2010). Instruments for assessing interest in STEM content and careers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(2), 345–368.Google Scholar
  50. Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Cox, M., Knezek, D., & ten Brummelhuis, A. (2013). Under which conditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A call to action. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), 4–14.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sul Ross State UniversityAlpineUSA

Personalised recommendations