View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Makerspaces Pedagogy -- Supports and Constraints during 3D Design and 3D Printing Activities in Primary Schools

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Makerspaces Pedagogy -- Supports and Constraints during 3D Design and 3D Printing Activities in Primary Schools
Language: English
Authors: Bower, Matt (ORCID 0000-0002-4161-5816), Stevenson, Michael (ORCID 0000-0003-3720-1888), Forbes, Anne (ORCID 0000-0001-6383-8351), Falloon, Garry (ORCID 0000-0002-6369-8771), Hatzigianni, Maria (ORCID 0000-0001-9378-2598)
Source: Educational Media International. 2020 57(1):1-28.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 28
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Education Level: Elementary Education
Early Childhood Education
Primary Education
Descriptors: Teaching Methods, Shared Resources and Services, Printing, Technology Uses in Education, Design, Learning Activities, STEM Education, Elementary School Students, Elementary School Teachers, Constructivism (Learning), Primary Education, Teacher Attitudes, Reflection
DOI: 10.1080/09523987.2020.1744845
ISSN: 0952-3987
Abstract: Makerspaces have been heralded as an effective way to support the development of 21st Century and STEM capabilities, yet there is a paucity of systematic, multiple-case analysis to guide educator and researcher practice. This collective case study examined 24 primary school classroom contexts to understand what supports and constrains learning and teaching in technology-oriented makerspaces. Thematic analysis of 24 teacher in-situ reflective journals and focus group interviews of all teacher participants revealed 19 supports and 11 constraints, relating to pedagogy, task design, learner attributes, technological factors, the school environment, and teacher capabilities and beliefs. These were used to form an evidence-based framework for learning and teaching in makerspaces. Findings are discussed in relation to previous research which has tended to be anecdotal and based on single cases. Implications for future teaching, research and policy initiatives are also detailed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1254546
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEhOPY8_qasEh2rkqIIMS6FAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDI0Z1Nhowl7Ai7vCqQIBEICBm8jYKhVeo1Qb3aIVoc3LOkNhVnhXWrGIId9wNULJt9e-7z9uYCE7z081ok7025yf-8rhkkz8gZxWFjaeZBvgHRHLMl2me29UE6vhYpXFuzoa9vwWOf4tnPNNcBpr8sa2UStvZEGuiUVJjmh42adTB3arbZwftVb1fklpM3CLQZG5n68KnfLr5m8s2OszyCylVdUPm_hDg_d9CsG3
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0143251238;5b101mar.20;2020May19.04:11;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0143251238-1">Makerspaces pedagogy – supports and constraints during 3D design and 3D printing activities in primary schools </title> <p>Makerspaces have been heralded as an effective way to support the development of 21st Century and STEM capabilities, yet there is a paucity of systematic, multiple-case analysis to guide educator and researcher practice. This collective case study examined 24 primary school classroom contexts to understand what supports and constrains learning and teaching in technology-oriented makerspaces. Thematic analysis of 24 teacher in-situ reflective journals and focus group interviews of all teacher participants revealed 19 supports and 11 constraints, relating to pedagogy, task design, learner attributes, technological factors, the school environment, and teacher capabilities and beliefs. These were used to form an evidence-based framework for learning and teaching in makerspaces. Findings are discussed in relation to previous research which has tended to be anecdotal and based on single cases. Implications for future teaching, research and policy initiatives are also detailed.</p> <p>Keywords: makerspaces; 3D Printing; 3D Design; primary; K-2; pedagogy; learning design; framework</p> <hd id="AN0143251238-2">Introduction</hd> <p>In primary and secondary contexts, educators are leveraging maker technologies and pedagogies to enable more inquiry-oriented, hands-on, engaging, and student-centred forms of learning (Freeman et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref1">12</reflink>]). These efforts align with recent international emphases on developing capabilities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines (Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref2">24</reflink>]; UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref3">35</reflink>]), as well developing so-called 21<sups>st</sups> Century capabilities such as collaboration, critical thinking, problem-solving and creativity (Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref4">5</reflink>]; Luna Scott, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref5">19</reflink>]). Although makerspaces are a vehicle for fostering these capabilities, recent research suggests they are underutilised, particularly in the lower primary years (Papavlasopoulou et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref6">26</reflink>]). Understanding and applying maker technologies and pedagogies represent key challenges for school leaders and classroom teachers, many of whom have had limited exposure to maker-based teaching and learning, and not received professional learning to inform their approaches. Compounding this problem, the lack of research about pedagogies that support and constrain learning and teaching in makerspaces means that teachers have little empirical guidance upon which to base their practice (Papavlasopoulou et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref7">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Researchers suggest that teaching in makerspaces requires substantial teacher pedagogical change. For example, Oliver ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref8">23</reflink>]) argues that contemporary maker pedagogies need to include "facilitation and assessment strategies for maker projects that are often open-ended, interest-driven, and collaborative, [thereby] placing different demands on a teacher" (p. 213). Likewise, Harron and Hughes ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref9">15</reflink>]) stress the need for teachers to include design thinking in their suite of capabilities, so that they can "consider the new ideas in relation to their content and pedagogical knowledge in order to build new curricular lesson ideas." (p. 12). Despite these and similar calls for professional learning to provide teachers with opportunities to experience, first-hand, maker pedagogies (see, for example, Paganelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref10">25</reflink>]), our substantive review of the literature (below) suggests that there have not been any comprehensive studies that examined the types of pedagogies that enhance learning in makerspaces or the factors that constrain and support teachers. Accordingly, this investigation sought to determine pedagogical supports and constraints for learning and teaching in makerspaces, based on an analysis of teaching 3D design and 3D printing in 24 primary school classes.</p> <hd id="AN0143251238-3">Literature review</hd> <p>Makerspaces have been defined as "sites for creative production in art, science, and engineering where people ... blend digital and physical technologies to explore ideas, learn technical skills, and create new products" (Sheridan et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref11">30</reflink>], p. 505). Characterising makerspaces in the K-12 context, the 2017 <emph>Horizon Report K-12</emph> (Freeman et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref12">12</reflink>]) observes that makerspaces as a topic has been included in the Horizon annual reports since 2015, noting the rise of makerspaces "from compelling phenomenon to global movement" (p. 40). In their discussion of the maker movement, Peppler and Bender ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref13">28</reflink>]) point to "a growing culture of hands-on making, creating, designing, and innovating ... [and] a do-it-yourself (or do-it-with-others) mindset that brings together individuals ... making nearly anything" (p. 23). Cohen ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref14">7</reflink>]) similarly states that the maker movement "is characterized by people who engage in the construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of physical artefacts, and who share both the process of making and their physical products with the broader community of makers" (p. 6). Contemporary makerspaces increasingly involve the integration of digital technologies into practices of designing and constructing physical, and sometimes virtual, objects (Peppler et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref15">29</reflink>]). According to Martin ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref16">20</reflink>]), one of the ways these activities can be distinguished from traditional arts-and-crafts is through the use of digital technologies to produce artefacts and facilitate an ethos of open-source sharing.</p> <p>The learning theory that is most often aligned with learning in makerspaces is Constructionism (Papert, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref17">27</reflink>]) which suggests that learning "is most effective when part of an activity the learner experiences is constructing a meaningful product" (Papert, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref18">27</reflink>], p. 2). Constructionist theory draws on constructivism, the older and widely-accepted learning theory that considers how learners construct knowledge through the interaction of their experience and ideas. Constructionism is further influenced by related theories such as socio-constructivism – which builds on constructivism by emphasizing socially-oriented constructivist viewpoints, or "neo-Piagetian" perspectives (Doise et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref19">9</reflink>]) – and pragmatism, which emphasizes experience, self-determination, social tools, and the dialectical relationship between self and the environment (Dewey, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref20">8</reflink>]). Both theories appear well-aligned with the focus on sustained creativity, design thinking, problem solving and critical thinking invoked by makerspaces. As such, a wide number of other constructivist-aligned theorists such as Dewey and Vygostky, have contributed to the underlying tenets of constructionist learning (Bevan, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>Empirical research literature to inform learning and teaching in makerspaces is still emerging. There are numerous studies that examine what happens in makerspaces, for instance, case-studies of non-school based (i.e. informal) makerspaces (Sheridan et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref22">30</reflink>]), observational studies of what students learn in museum makerspaces (Wardrip & Brahms, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref23">37</reflink>]), interview studies relating to the administration of public library makerspaces (Moorefield-Lang, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref24">22</reflink>]; Slatter & Howard, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref25">32</reflink>]), or surveys that examine the impact of university makerspaces upon senior students (Forest et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref26">11</reflink>]). While these sorts of small sample phenomenological studies provide insights into what can happen in makerspaces, they provide little guidance about how to enhance makerspace-based learning and teaching in schools.</p> <p>There are several rhetorical and commentary papers that do propose what might enhance learning and teaching in makerspaces. For instance, Martin ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref27">20</reflink>]) recommends adopting a maker mindset that is playful, growth oriented, failure positive, and collaborative. Similarly, Kurti et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref28">18</reflink>]) suggest inspiring wonder, inviting curiosity, encouraging playfulness, and so on, and Stager ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref29">33</reflink>]) recommends allowing sufficient time and centering students in the educational process. However, while these papers do focus on providing high level pedagogical orientations and strategies, none are based on any empirical data or systematic analysis of makerspaces learning and teaching.</p> <p>Review papers of learning and teaching in makerspaces confirm the paucity of empirical research available to understand and inform teaching practices. The solid review by Vossoughi and Bevan ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref30">36</reflink>]) does summarize a number of pedagogical and facilitative practices that have been recommended in the literature, including the use of more community-oriented approaches, explicit guidance, facilitating whole-group discussions, inquiry-based questioning, understanding the technology, and so on. However, the findings are drawn from the observations of researchers or educators examining a single class or context, rather than a systematic analysis of evidence from across multiple makerspaces that suggest certain pedagogical approaches might be more suitable. Similarly, Oliver ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref31">23</reflink>]) also provides practical suggestions for educational leaders on how to setup, fit-out and sustain a makerspace, including some pedagogical recommendations such as following a design cycle, guiding learners through the design process, and encouraging constructive peer feedback. Noteworthy, and symptomatic of the makerspaces literature, is that many of Oliver's findings are from grey literature that does not employ empirical research methods to derive conclusions, or often draws from contexts other than makerspaces (such as design projects generally, or computer programming initiatives). The most recent and systematic review of makerspaces by Papavlasopoulou et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref32">26</reflink>]) does conclude that makerspaces units of work tend to be applied over longer durations, and that collaboration amongst participants was present in the majority of studies. However, they highlight the need for further research and more rigorous analysis to determine more effective ways of teaching and learning in makerspaces.</p> <p>There have been small scale studies that have used interview-based research methods to investigate how to support makerspace-based teaching. These include Koh and Abbas ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref33">17</reflink>]) study of library and museum personnel to determine top competencies required by information professionals (e.g., adaptability, collaborative competencies, ability to advocate for learning spaces, grant writing skills, etc.), interviews to determine how school leaders can support the establishment and maintenance of makerspaces in schools (Harron & Hughes, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref34">15</reflink>]), and exploration of how question prompts by facilitators could support reflexive thinking by teenagers participating in community-based makerspaces programs (Bowler & Champagne, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>]). However, all of these studies used a single data source or at the most three makerspaces contexts, and did not comprehensively address the issue of pedagogical supports and constraints when learning and teaching in makerspaces. Given that makerspaces are starting to become part of mainstream education (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref36">7</reflink>]; Freeman et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref37">12</reflink>]; Halverson & Sheridan, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref38">14</reflink>]), there is pressing need for systematic and cross-case analysis to understand and inform learning and teaching in makerspaces.</p> <p>Researchers from the Learning Design field attest the importance of providing teachers with the pedagogical frameworks to support their technology-enhanced learning design and implementation practices (Bower, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref39">2</reflink>]; Goodyear & Retalis, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref40">13</reflink>]; Mishra & Koehler, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref41">21</reflink>]). Mere access to technology without a corresponding shift in teacher pedagogical understanding and beliefs rarely leads to the effective integration of technology into the curriculum (Ertmer et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref42">10</reflink>]). Accordingly, evidence-based learning design frameworks may support teacher thinking and practice when utilizing makerspaces. However, a recent review by Bower and Vlachopoulos ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref43">3</reflink>]) found that very few learning design models appear to be based on empirical evidence, which may compromise their validity and relevance. The absence of an empirically generated model to support teachers embarking on makerspace-based learning and teaching coincides with the general lack of studies that systematically examine pedagogical phenomena across a number of different instances and contexts.</p> <p>In response, this study sought to provide an evidence base that researchers and educators could use when designing and analyzing learning and teaching in digitally-supported makerspaces, by addressing the following research question.</p> <hd1 id="AN0143251238-4"> <emph>Research Question: What supports and constrains learning in makerspace-based activities incorporating 3D design and 3D printing?</emph> </hd1> <p>Critically, the collective case study drew from a large number of classes to explain the reasons <emph>why</emph> certain pedagogies or phenomena supported or constrained learning, based upon primary evidence from participants.</p> <hd id="AN0143251238-5">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0143251238-6">Context and participants</hd> <p>This study used a collective case-study methodology (Simons, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref44">31</reflink>]) involving 24 primary school classes to distil supports and constraints relating to makerspace-based teaching. Collective case studies examine several instances to form a collective understanding of the issue at stake (Simons, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref45">31</reflink>]), and in this study, the 24 classes were drawn from three metropolitan schools located in <location removed for anonymous review>. The 24 participating Year K to Year 2 teachers volunteered to take part in the study in consultation with their respective principals. The profile of the schools, and the number of teachers from each school who volunteered for the study, are shown in Table 1. From Table 1 it is evident that the schools were of quite different sizes, with the largest school comprising of more students from higher Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA) backgrounds, and more students from a Language Background other than English (LBOTE). Thus, a variety of sizes, socio-economic statuses and language backgrounds were represented in the sample of schools.</p> <p>Table 1. Profile of participating schools and teachers.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>School</td><td>Student population</td><td>Teaching Staff (FTE)</td><td>Socio-economic status – ICSEA value</td><td>LBOTE (%)</td><td>Number of participating teachers</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>A</td><td>1200</td><td>66.1</td><td>1144</td><td>94</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td>503</td><td>27.4</td><td>1083</td><td>81</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>C</td><td>204</td><td>15.3</td><td>1083</td><td>62</td><td>3</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Across the schools, there were twelve Kindergarten teachers (50%), seven Year 1 teachers (29%), and five Year 2 teachers (21%). The teachers were aged between 22 and 62 years with an average age of 37 years and a median of 35 years (mildly right-skewed distribution). The range of teaching experience was from 1 year to 40 years with an average of 11 years and a median of 7 years (heavily right-skewed distribution). There were 23 females and one male in the cohort. In response to the question "How would you rate your confidence in teaching with technology?", a majority (n = 16) indicated a score of 2 ("Medium"), with more participants indicating low confidence than high confidence (average score of 1.8 out of 4). None of the teachers had any prior experience teaching in makerspaces.</p> <p>To participate in the study teachers were asked to implement a module of work involving 3D design and 3D printing. Each school provided iPads with the <emph>Makers Empire 3D App</emph> pre-loaded, as well and newly-installed 3D printers. Teachers had access to sets of iPads for their lessons, but in some instances, students needed to share devices. The printers were installed in or close to classrooms of classes participating in the study, to provide classes with the capacity to print their designs. Otherwise, for any additional tactile materials such as paper, clay, cardboard, blocks and so on, it was each teacher's responsibility to source and distribute these in their regular classroom and to customize their learning space according to the requirements of each lesson. Teachers were given free choice over the topic of the module that their class undertook so that it could be effectively and appropriately integrated into their particular classroom curriculum. A wide range of design tasks were set by teachers for their classes, including designing keyrings, shadow puppets, a habitat for hermit crabs, headphone cable holders, spinning tops, floatable boats, herb markers, playground sculptures, bag tags, and characters for a stop-motion narrative.</p> <p>To prepare teachers for teaching their makerspaces modules, a professional development program was conducted before the topics were implemented. The first one-day workshop covered principles of constructionism and design thinking using a series of hands-on activities, followed by a session covering the use of the <emph>Makers Empire 3D app</emph> and online teacher dashboard. The <emph>Makers Empire 3D app</emph> provided the touch screen interface that the students could use to facilitate their 3D design processes, and the teacher dashboard enabled the teachers to track the design progress of their class. The professional development also included online professional support in the form of an Edmodo course page to promote asynchronous communication between the professional development facilitator and participating teachers, as well as weekly live web-conferencing sessions using Zoom where the facilitator presented on topics of interest and fielded questions from teachers. The final face-to-face workshop consisted of a session explaining the operation of the 3D printers being used in the schools, a discussion of teachers' progress with the app and their lesson planning, as well a final session where more concrete lesson planning occurred in relation to teachers' individual curricula. For further details about the professional learning program, see (Stevenson et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref46">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>In order to acquire a first-hand understand the sorts of pedagogies that teachers applied, researchers observed 31 lessons (at least one from each of the 24 teachers) and documented the teaching approaches used along with the nature of the task types (digital, offline or hybrid). The range of teaching approaches and task types is shown in Table 2. From Table 2 it can be seen that a wide variety of teaching approaches were used, most commonly explicit instruction, but also problem-based learning, open-ended inquiry, team teaching, workstations, and project-based learning, often with more than one teaching approach being used in a class depending on the student needs at different points in the lesson.</p> <p>Table 2. Teaching approaches and task types used in observed classes.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Domain</td><td>Code</td><td>Frequency (n)</td><td>Frequency (%)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Teaching Approaches</italic></td><td>Explicit instruction</td><td>24</td><td>77.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Problem-solving</td><td>18</td><td>58.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Open-ended inquiry</td><td>17</td><td>54.8%</td></tr><tr><td>Team teaching</td><td>4</td><td>12.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Stations</td><td>4</td><td>12.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Project-based learning</td><td>1</td><td>3.2%</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Task Types</italic></td><td>Digital (making with technology)</td><td>15</td><td>48.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Offline (making with physical materials)</td><td>6</td><td>19.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Hybrid (Online and Offline)</td><td>10</td><td>32%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Photographs of a typical lesson sequence are shown in Figure 1 below, REMI_A_1744845 including a direct instruction and teacher modelling session (left) and students subsequently undertaking independent inquiry individually and in pairs (right). Teachers also used a variety of digital and offline tasks, often combining these in the one lesson. For instance, students would sometimes use paper and pen or physical materials to initially draft some designs and then transfer their design ideas into the 3D Design tool on their iPad (see Figure 2 left) and then later 3D print their digital work for physical testing in the classroom (see Figure 2 right). For more details about the sorts of pedagogical approaches that teachers used, the work produced by students and the nature of the makerspaces themselves, see the Primary Makers research project report available at <ulink href="http://primarymakers.com">http://primarymakers.com</ulink>.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Teacher direct instruction and modelling (left) and student independent inquiry (right).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. Student shadow puppet design sketch translated into the 3D Design software (left) and students testing their 3Dprinted shadow puppets with the teacher (right).</p> <hd id="AN0143251238-7">Data sources</hd> <p>Two data sources were used to determine factors that supported or constrained learning and teaching in makerspaces: i) reflective journals that teachers were asked to keep during the teaching of their modules, and ii) post-project teacher focus group interviews. For the reflective journals, all teachers were asked to spend approximately 25 minutes weekly, documenting thoughts and observations about lessons that incorporated makerspaces, as close as possible to the time, the actual lessons were taught. Teachers were also invited to include relevant artefacts that related to the taught lessons, with lesson plans, resources, units of work, and work samples being offered as possible examples. This resulted in 102 lesson reflections by the 24 teachers, with several including additional artefacts such as lesson plans and photos of student work. Guiding questions were provided to help teachers focus their reflective journals, including questions that encouraged teachers to document the issues, pedagogies and supports that influenced their lessons (the full reflective journal guide is provided in Appendix 1).</p> <p>Occurring after classes had completed their makerspaces modules, teachers also volunteered to participate in focus group interviews. The four focus groups (two at school A, one at school B and one at school C) provided teachers with the opportunity to elaborate on their postimplementation responses, collaboratively discuss pedagogical issues impacting upon learning and teaching in makerspaces, as well as reflect upon their own personal growth (see Appendix 2 for the semi-structured interview protocol). Each focus group ran for approximately 40 minutes. All focus group interviews were transcribed verbatim for later analysis (outlined below).</p> <p>Other data sources were considered for the analysis, but were discounted for consistency and reliability reasons. Initially, the research team considered using instruments in an attempt to assess student learning and compare these to different pedagogical approaches and influences for each class. However, each class had different tasks and outcomes that were being targeted across different year levels, making it impossible to design a single instrument to assess student learning that could then be used to compare the effectiveness of pedagogical strategies between classes. As well, researcher observations of lessons were considered as an additional data source. However, this could possibly have been subject to observer bias, as the results were more subjective, based on "what the researchers thought" rather than independently verifiable data. Consequently, the research team focused exclusively on the teacher reflective journals and the post-project focus group interviews as primary data sources.</p> <hd id="AN0143251238-8">Analysis and reporting</hd> <p>Qualitative analysis was principally undertaken using QSR NVivo, Version 11. In all cases, qualitative data were explored inductively, whereby category systems and codes were generated by directly examining each dataset rather than generated prior to examination, which is considered "the most common approach used by qualitative researchers ... because of the inductive nature of most qualitative research" (Burke Johnson & Christensen, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref47">6</reflink>], p. 781). Where possible, the research team used emic terms – that is, terms used by the participants themselves. The inductive approach led to different category systems and coding for each of the qualitative datasets analysed. This approach promoted high fidelity to each data set. Enumeration of qualitative data (that is, the process of quantifying data) was undertaken by outlining the frequency of codes, in order to help better characterise the data sets. In accordance with Burke Johnson and Christensen ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref48">6</reflink>]), the analysis involved ongoing dialectical pragmatism, which encompassed frequent "back-and-forth listening and synthesis of multiple perspectives" (p. 648).</p> <p>Themes emerging from each data source were triangulated with one another for confirmatory purposes. In some cases, additional themes emerged from a particular dataset, and checks were performed to confirm that these themes extended rather than contradicted the supports and constraints that teachers were identifying in the other dataset. During the analysis, <emph>all</emph> themes that emerged from the teacher reflective journals and focus group discussions were included, in order to more comprehensively characterise learning and teaching in makerspaces. The possibility of only including pedagogical strategies and issues that related exclusively to makerspaces as opposed to other educational technology contexts was considered. However, doing so would have meant cherry-picking data of questionable bounds (since all observations related to the makerspaces context) and would have obscured the larger view of what learning and teaching in makerspaces involved. Including general pedagogical observations about learning and teaching in makerspaces enabled a comprehensive characterisation to be portrayed and a holistic design framework to be developed. Including all themes that emerged also enables the findings relating to makerspaces in this study to be compared and contrasted with research findings from other educational technology contexts. The process led to the identification of 29 themes, which the research team then clustered by consensus into dimensions according to the high-level topic to which they related (either pedagogy, tasks, technology, learners, school environment, teacher beliefs/capabilities).</p> <p>Reporting of themes occurs according to the two data sources, to demonstrate how the focus group interviews confirmed, and in some cases extended, findings from the teacher reflective journals. Supports are reported first for each data source, followed by constraints, to enable easier information processing. The number of teachers who identified each theme is provided in each case, to indicate the prevalence of each theme across the study. Direct quotes are used to illustrate teacher conceptions relating to each theme, in order to promote fidelity to the data. Pseudonyms are used in association with the teacher quotes so that comments across the dataset can be interrelated while still preserving the anonymity of participants (as required by the ethics approval for this study). The combined themes across all data sources are then summarised in a tabular and visual format, to support integrated interpretation and application. Reflection upon the relationships between findings in this study and other learning technology studies is deferred to the Discussion and Conclusion section.</p> <hd id="AN0143251238-9">Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0143251238-10">Reflective journals – supports</hd> <p> <bold>Explicit instruction</bold> was considered important by 19 of the 24 teachers (79%) to provide students with an introduction to tasks and sufficient directions about how to proceed. For instance, Ella employed explicit instruction when guiding her students through the introduction of important concepts such as "floating" and "sinking" in her make-a-boat topic, and Emma explained the need to "explicitly talk about shadow puppets and [that] students need more exposure to how they work". Nadia felt explicit instruction was essential to help her kindergarten students learn how to use the app. For Penny, the multi-lesson nature of the topic made explicit instructions necessary, to link concepts from previous lessons with those explored in the lesson at hand.</p> <p> <bold>Modelling</bold> was discussed by nine teachers (38%) as a way to help students undertake the procedural aspects of the design process. Jenna described her approach as "model-then-do", where the teacher "explicitly models, then students have a go". Nadia described how this was an important step towards students becoming more capable and independent in their design capabilities, particularly with respect to using the 3D Design app, because "modelling this process helps them develop and apply these skills on their own". Modelling was often supported through the use of a screen broadcasting system, such as the Apple TV.</p> <p> <bold>Open-ended inquiry</bold> was referenced by 15 teachers (62.5%), with linguistic indicators including "hands on", "play", "explore" and "experiment" suggesting that teachers often used inquiry as a means of open-ended progression through the design process. Ella used open-ended play to encourage her students to learn about the features of the app and share their findings with peers. Dawn noted that "allowing students time to play was beneficial as this gave them the confidence to use [the app] the next time around". She believed that open-ended play improved both learner engagement and the learning environment by freeing her up to work alongside her students. For Jasmine, open-ended instruction appeared to foster creativity and lateral thinking, with her students "creating over one hundred and eighty designs".</p> <p> <bold>Offline tasks</bold> were used by 19 teachers (79%) to assist students with the online design processes they were undertaking, and also to test their designs. For example, Amanda's Kindergarten students used both natural and synthetic materials to "build a boat that would float and hold a teddy", whereas Kirsten's students made clay prototypes of their playground sculpture models "to understand what shapes are needed when we use the <emph>Makers Empire 3D</emph> app". These tasks helped students to interrelate the digital and kinaesthetic aspects of their designs at early- to mid-stages of their design processes. By contrast, testing usually followed the successful printing of 3D objects. For instance, Ella's Kindergarten students went to the outdoor makerspace to test whether 3D-printed boats float, whereas Emma's Year 1 students used a shadowbox and light to see if their 3D-printed characters cast sufficient light.</p> <p>The use of <bold>resources and other supports</bold>, both physical and digital, was referenced by most teachers (n = 15, 63%), as important for supporting a diverse range of learners within their classrooms. For example, Emma showed "a real example of shadow puppet theatre and allowing students to experiment with the puppets". Ella employed PowerPoint presentations to provide students with "some key tools that had not been discussed yet". Nadia utilised photographs to visualise problems that the students addressed, noting that in this lesson, "verbal and visual prompting was key ... [and] the class photographs of the problems made them really consider why this was an issue in our classroom". Seven teachers identified how having QR codes enabled them to streamline the login process.</p> <p> <bold>Class discussion</bold> was highlighted by seven teachers (29%) to foster critical and reflective thinking about their maker activities. For example, in Ella's class discussion that followed an open-ended design phase, she observed that "the students were very reflective about their learning designs and were able to identify what worked, what didn't, and what they would have to do to make it work". Ella also saw class discussion as a means to critically negotiate "criteria to refine our toys before printing off a design for each student".</p> <p> <bold>Questioning and verbalisation strategies</bold> were also identified by four teachers (17%) to encourage students to articulate their thinking and formulate their ideas. Sometimes questioning was used as an ongoing strategy to support students' construction processes, for instance, Amanda who "as they designed [was] asking them what they are doing and helping them to talk through what they could do to fix any problems they have". In another example, Alice used "the think aloud" strategy, which involved "verbalising the problem and wondering why" to help students "share their ideas ... building up the background knowledge required".</p> <p>The extended duration of the task meant that <bold>reinforcement and revision</bold> was discussed by three teachers (n = 13%) to relate previously learnt knowledge to current tasks. For example, Alice revised "how a question is written" so that students could develop appropriate inquiry questions for their research. Amanda described in detail how she revised important <emph>Makers Empire</emph> instructions for her Kindergarten students, while Hannah believed that it was important to "always come back to our purpose, challenge, and the step we are on".</p> <p> <bold>Scaffolds</bold> were also identified as useful by five teachers (21%) to help students structure their design thinking and guide them through the creative process. For instance, Amanda and Ella both used a "sink/float" table with images to test students' thinking about the buoyancy of different objects and to generate criteria. Emma used a story with accompanying storyboard scaffold to structure the process of creating 3D characters, while Hannah used a design scaffold with detailed steps for students to follow when designing a safety bag tag.</p> <p> <bold>Group work</bold> was another important pedagogical strategy that several teachers (n = 8, 33%) felt could support learning and teaching in makerspaces, especially through carefully-paired mixed ability groupings that allowed for peer mentoring. Amber's strategy was to "ask more confident students to assist and demonstrate what they know to other students who are struggling", while Dawn employed "selective pairings of students that are working together inclusively". Ella utilised iPad swapping to achieve peer instruction, whereby "halfway through our app time, the students swap [iPads] so that their partner can work on their design", observing that this strategy "really improves what they make, [and] most designs were are lot clearer and more logically put together". Julia felt that working with "a small group works much better than the whole class ... students feel a sense of support with the teacher working alongside them to overcome problems and direct and solve their own difficulties".</p> <p>Leveraging student <bold>enthusiasm</bold> was frequently mentioned throughout the reflective journals (22 teachers, 92%) as contributing to student engagement, collaboration and risk taking. For example, Amanda recognised the enthusiasm of her students, when she observed them making comments like "'guys – look what I've made!' and 'hey – how did you do that?'". In Alice's class, students were "very keen to share their prior learning with the app, and to help each other with the functionality", which reduced the load on her to provide instructions and support. Molly felt her students' enjoyment of the process led to them "taking risks and sharing their achievements with others".</p> <hd id="AN0143251238-11">Reflective journals – constraints</hd> <p>Eighteen teachers (75%) identified that their efforts were constrained by <bold>technical issues with 3D printing</bold>. Jasmine commented on the unpredictability of her 3D printer, noting in one lesson that "the 3D printers were not working ... at first the printer said the platform was too hot and it wouldn't work", and further noted that "a few days later, I tried again and it successfully started ... however, halfway through the job, the platform again became too hot and it stopped working". Being able to successfully print in her class, Kim nonetheless drew attention to "the difficulty of having to be patient and wait for the creation to print, as it takes a long time". Teachers pointed out that the slowness of the 3D printing in some cases constrained what students could design, and also the number of iterations of testing they could conduct.</p> <p>For nine teachers (38%) <bold>Internet connectivity and resource issues</bold> meant that one or more of their students were not able to login using their iPads. Mackenzie conceded that "unfortunately, technology let us down again ... most groups were unable to work on the app due to connection problems, or [the] very slow loading of the app". Alice simply noted that "some of the iPads would not log into the [app and] we really need 1:1 iPads in the classroom". Dawn expressed the need for "iPads that work". Madalyn said she would like more iPads because "currently, groups of four-to-five are sharing one iPad, meaning there is a lot of waiting ... not a skill that Kindy are good at".</p> <p>There were 14 teachers (58%) who observed <bold>usability issues</bold> for the young cohort of learners when using the 3D design software. Some of these issues related to the execution of app functions, for instance, difficulty creating, resizing, rotating and joining objects, given that "Kindy and Year 1 students are not very dexterous". Nadia also pointed out the challenge of her Kindergarten students being unable to read the instructions and feedback provided in the app, and thus at times peers or the teacher needed to provide assistance for them to interpret and operate the app.</p> <p>Eleven teachers (46%) identified how <bold>student misconceptions</bold> could constrain learning and teaching in makerspaces. For Diana, Ella, Rachel, and Sally, the main misconceptions lay in students' beliefs about what could and could not be successfully 3D-printed. As Ella elaborated, "the main misconception prior to starting was the huge plans that the students had – for example, making toys with moving parts, robotics, etc.". Similarly, Diana described the impractical nature of many of the designs of her Year 1 students ideated – including giant robots with mechanical arms – in response to the problem of tangled headphone cables. Rachel noted that in her classroom, "many students did not realise that parts of their drawn plan would be extremely difficult to replicate ... they only found this when using the playdough and experimenting with the app", while Sally succinctly identified the misconception as students believing "that anything they put on the baseboard will print as they want it". Julia and Kim had students in their class who did not realise how scale and size operated from the app to the final, 3D-printed product.</p> <p>Closely-related to the misconceptions were the <bold>learning challenges</bold> that ten participants (42%) referenced in their reflections. Learning challenges often related to underlying problem solving capabilities, included the ability to form and ask questions, knowing how to deconstruct the problem, and having a clear idea about what to design. Sally observed that, in her classroom, "a lot of students want to be told what to do or how to solve the problem". Teachers observed that students struggled with digitally replicating physical designs that they had made, with Kirsten explaining "the clay sculptures help the students adjust their designs, finding the appropriate shapes is still difficult for most students". Kim observed that a lot of her children had difficulties understanding mathematical reasoning associated with ratios and dimensions. Many of her students accidentally printed very small objects, leading her to reflect that "the concepts of ratio and dimensions are quite difficult for infant children to grasp".</p> <p> <bold>Behavioural issues</bold> could constrain learning, as noted by five teachers (21%), with concerns including distraction and occasional disengagement. For Abigail, Tim and Emma, disengagement appeared linked to iPad use, with students becoming disengaged as they wait for their turn on the iPad.", while Tim's students struggled "to share and take turns on the iPads". Alice's students "found it really hard to ask their peers for help ... [and] come straight to the teacher so they can be 'told' a solution". Kim's students became side-tracked, "spending so much time making their objects 'pretty' that they forget it prints in one colour", while Penny's students were asked to design a submarine "but some still wanted to play with other sections" including gamification aspects of the app.</p> <p>While students working together often positively contributed to learning, some <bold>negative collaboration</bold> effects were also observed by eight teachers (33%). Rachel conceded that "low-performing students do not appear to contribute their ideas as readily", while Penny and Tim both had some "problem" students who struggled to share iPads effectively. Jenna's lessons also involved pairs sharing iPads but working together at the same time; for her, students "couldn't agree on the image they want to choose for their boat". Madalyn's Kindergarten students "struggled with collaboration ... with each student wanting to draw/design in their way, and groups struggling to talk and reach a consensus". Mackenzie said her students "prefer to work individually rather than sharing their ideas".</p> <p>A small number of teachers (n = 4, 17%) referenced their <bold>confidence with the technology</bold> as a challenge. In her opening reflection, Amber conceded that she felt "a bit unsure presenting this [<emph>Makers Empire</emph>] app, as I feel I don't know how to confidently navigate it". Jenna likewise wrote in her first reflection that she wasn't "too confident with some things such as saving it [the design]". Interestingly, only one teacher out of twenty-four was still questioning their confidence with technology by the end of their module.</p> <p>Nine teachers (38%) felt that there was <bold>insufficient time for teachers and students</bold> in order to optimise and implement their lessons. Hannah voiced her need for more "planning time", and Jenna stated that she needed "to have a play around with the app myself". The remaining teachers felt that more time needed to be allocated to the modules in class. As Rachel put it, "more hands-on time with the app is required for children to gain confidence and the skills to use it effectively". At one point, Sally worried that she was "running out of time to have them have an object ready for printing before the end of the year", and Kirsten noted that in future teaching in makerspaces, she "will allow more time for reflection".</p> <hd id="AN0143251238-12">Teacher focus groups – supports</hd> <p>The teacher focus groups confirmed many of the themes that arose in the reflective journals. For example, teachers explained the important contribution of explicit instruction (seven teachers, 29%) and open-ended inquiry (eleven teachers) to student learning. Six teachers discussed how offline making tasks helped students, for instance, to "understand the shapes of how to make their shadow puppets". However, during the focus group interviews teachers raised several new supports and constraints that had not emerged in their reflective journals, as outlined below.</p> <p>Thirteen teachers (54%) suggested the explicit use of a <bold>design thinking cycle</bold> to support students' learning. For Emma, this use appeared to be cyclical, where "we'd go for it [designing] in the app, and then I'd have a look at their designs, and then I'd see that there were some real gaps in knowledge, so we had to go back to the real world". Describing the whole process, she stressed the importance of her students prototyping and evolving their designs:</p> <p>I think the most valuable part was at the end, when we'd printed, and then they had a look at the flaws in their design as well. Like, what broke, what was too skinny, why didn't it create such a good design. And then they went back and changed it. And I think that part right at the end was really where a lot of the learning took place.</p> <p>Sophie stressed the benefits of <bold>extended design tasks</bold> over "one off", or self-contained lessons. She argued that design "has to be integrated within a much deeper project ... that's where the design process and technology really comes into play. If it's not linked with a deeper project, then you're missing a lot of the challenge and the creative challenge that you can do from it".</p> <p>The <bold>3D Design software</bold> was seen by 11 teachers (46%) as supporting learning, mainly by enabling rapid construction processes and iterative design. Amanda explained that the app they were using "supported the kids a lot, because they were able to make something that they may not have been able to make if we used cardboard, or foil, or whatever". Diana felt that with her support, students were able to quickly "navigate the app working in teams to collaborate and gather initial [design] ideas". Amanda expressed how the 3D design software was essential for supporting design thinking in her unit of work, commenting that refining designs "is a skill that they may not have had [achieved] without the support of the app".</p> <p>For six teachers (25%), the <bold>authentic nature of tasks</bold> made an important contribution to learning, with connections between the design process and real-world applications of the 3D-printed objects, appearing significant. As Amanda explained with her students' 3D-printed boats, "they're more excited to actually test their boat in a real river, down a stream". Emma's students showed similar enthusiasm for their unit of work culminating in a shadow puppet performance for the school. Sophie regarded that same shadow puppet unit as an opportunity to get "deeper into the science side of light".</p> <p>Five teachers (21%) underscored the value of <bold>students providing constructive feedback</bold> to their peers during or following the design process. Rachel described how her students "were helping each other ... if someone couldn't do something, someone [else] would jump in and say, 'I'll show you how to do that'". Kirsten asserted that her students "had to provide that feedback to refine their level [of work] ... and my students, every time, got better and better at providing that feedback".</p> <p>There were six teachers (25%) who also discussed the importance of having <bold>appropriate makerspaces</bold> to enable the kinaesthetic activity associated with design processes. Amanda believed she was "very lucky to have the outdoor makerspace, because for Kindergarten that was a big component for our project". Ella added that the space "really informed the Science concepts ... [and] gave them a lot more context and understanding about what they have to then put into that [their designs]". Abigail stressed the importance of flexible furniture for makerspaces to work. As Hannah explained, "The kids of mine that were being observed were sitting on the orange jelly bean table and that gave them a lot of space to actually move ... I think that extra space the kids need to be able to ... have space for the iPad to be a bit more creative".</p> <p> <bold>Collegial support</bold> was raised as an important enabler for six (25%) of the teachers, not only for overcoming incidental technical issues, but also for advancing the pedagogical capabilities of teachers. Penny indicated that advancements were due to the community of practice that they had formed around the project, explaining "we were talking about it in the staff room, which we don't often talk about our practices ... you know, you whinge about kids ... so we are actually [now] talking about what we were doing". Madalyn added "we don't get to do that with every unit we teach ... you just don't get that opportunity". Collegial support appeared to be particularly important for the less confident teachers, with Mackenzie commenting "I still don't know enough about it, but I've been listening to these two [colleagues]" which had supported her learning. Alice indicated that the collegial support was imperative for her to complete the project, stating that she would "never have done the project by myself".</p> <p>The important contribution of <bold>experience</bold> to their confidence and practices was identified by four teachers (17%). Teachers indicated that the experience of having taught in a makerspace, and grappling with the challenges in-situ, meant that they had a better understanding of what was involved and the issues to consider for next time. As an example, Madalyn commented "it was good because as we were going along we'd be talking to each other and saying, 'this would be better next time, and we would change this next time', you know?". The experience of having taught in makerspaces also corresponded with an increase in teachers identifying as being "makers" themselves.</p> <p>Six teachers (25%) highlighted how the initial <bold>professional learning</bold> had been a substantial support. In particular, teachers identified how the professional learning had increased their knowledge and confidence to teach in makerspaces. As well as providing an overview of the technical skills and design thinking processes involved in makerspaces teaching, the professional learning also helped teachers to better understand "making" as a phenomenon. For instance, Molly commented that "the professional learning was an eye-opener, broadening my understanding of the ways makerspaces can be used to solve real-life problems". For some teachers, the combination of professional learning and experience meant that they would be confident enough to collaboratively facilitate professional development in their schools, with Madalyn commenting "I would [now] feel comfortable enough, probably with these guys' [colleagues'] support to run professional learning on how to use Makers Empire and give them some ideas about projects that they could maybe initiate".</p> <hd id="AN0143251238-13">Teacher focus groups – constraints</hd> <p>Several of the constraints raised in the reflective journals and post-implementation surveys were reiterated in the teacher focus groups. For instance, there was repeated mention of 3D printing problems by ten teachers, including frustration with the time it took to 3D-print, problems with the hardware and difficulties coordinating 3D printing across several classrooms. Resource problems including not enough iPads was again identified as a constraint, as were technology issues such as poor Wi-Fi connectivity. Additionally, learning challenges relating to 3D visualisation arose as another learning challenge for some students. Sophie explained how some of the younger students found interpretation of the 3D representations on the screen difficult, struggling to understand that "if you spin the platform, you're looking at a different orientation". Abigail observed that "twisting it [and rotating the design] ... are quite hard concepts for a younger stage". Time was again raised as an issue by nine teachers (38%), for reasons such as the time taken to 3D-print objects, and timetabling the module in an already crowded curriculum.</p> <p>At the same time, new constraints were identified by teachers as a result of the focus group interviews. <bold>Teacher technological knowledge</bold> of the app constrained learning, with some teachers not realizing that some parts and features of the app would be more suitable as starting points for their young learners. As an example, Amber explained that she directed her students to go "straight into Toy Designer, and quite a few of them [the students] were getting frustrated, not understanding the dimensions of it and how to make things attached, and they just got a little bit annoyed with it". Student discontent when teachers were unable to provide appropriate guidance, was exacerbated by the usability issues that students faced.</p> <p>At the same time as <bold>appropriate makerspaces</bold> could supporting learning, their absence could also be constraint. Alice conceded that she needed to constantly "go packing up and unpacking" materials for different makerspaces in the school and would like to have spaces set up all the time. In some instances,the space was deemed too small with "too many kids working in one space ... and we would have been better [off] having a smaller group".</p> <p>Table 3 below summarises the different supports and constraints that teachers identified, grouped into the dimensions to which each relates.</p> <p>Table 3. Supports and constraints identified by teachers when learning and teaching in makerspaces (+ indicates support, – indicates constraint).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Dimension</td><td>Influence (Theme)</td><td>Explanation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pedagogical</td><td>+ Explicit instruction</td><td>Provides requisite background knowledge, directions, link between lessons</td></tr><tr><td>+ Modelling</td><td>Supports completion of procedural tasks, for instance, using 3D design software</td></tr><tr><td>+ Open-ended inquiry</td><td>Facilitates exploration of 3D design software, enabled student-centred learning, encouraged creativity</td></tr><tr><td>+ Resources and other supports</td><td>Supports concept development and problem formation through representation slides and photos, with other kinaesthetic materials enabling building and testing of designs</td></tr><tr><td>+ Class discussion</td><td>Fosters critical and reflective thinking as well as collaborative negotiation of meaning</td></tr><tr><td>+ Questioning strategies</td><td>Encourages formulation of thinking and expression of learning</td></tr><tr><td>+ Reinforcement and revision</td><td>Assists to focus upon the design challenge and relate previous learning across a multi-lesson module</td></tr><tr><td>+ Scaffolds</td><td>Provides students with a framework to structure their thinking at particular points of the design process</td></tr><tr><td>+ Group work</td><td>Enables students to learn from and with each other, providing greater sense of support</td></tr><tr><td>Tasks</td><td>+ Design thinking cycle</td><td>Provides comprehensive structure for staging and understanding the problem-solving process</td></tr><tr><td>+ Extended design tasks</td><td>Supported deeper integration of design thinking and creativity</td></tr><tr><td>+ Authentic learning</td><td>Promoted greater enthusiasm and deeper engagement with topic</td></tr><tr><td>+ Offline tasks</td><td>Assisted students to consolidate initial design ideas, understand how to build their digital designs, and test their 3D printed objects</td></tr><tr><td>Learners</td><td>+ Enthusiasm</td><td>Encourages student engagement, collaboration and risk taking</td></tr><tr><td>- Usability issues for young students</td><td>Constrains learning for younger students who may initially struggle to use the interface due to low literacy, low dexterity, or lack of understanding of how to operate app effectively</td></tr><tr><td>- Student misconceptions</td><td>Leads to students overestimating what they can successfully design and print, its size, and structural integrity</td></tr><tr><td>- Learning challenges</td><td>Restricts what students create if they do not possess requisite skills in design, visualisation (including 3D visualisation), mathematics, problem solving, etc</td></tr><tr><td>- Student behavioural issues</td><td>Limits on-task behaviour when no access to devices, or distraction by other aspects of the software</td></tr><tr><td>- Poor collaboration</td><td>Counterproductive when students do not share resources, exchange ideas, agree on group design, or request help from their peers</td></tr><tr><td>Technology</td><td>+ Appropriate software</td><td>Enabled constructive processes and iterative design to produce and test objects that students would not have otherwise been able to make</td></tr><tr><td>- Technical difficulties 3D printing</td><td>Constrains learning by not allowing designs to be printed and tested, for instance, due to printing temperature</td></tr><tr><td>- Internet connectivity and resource issues</td><td>Lack of iPads or Wi-Fi prevents students from logging in to and using 3D design platform</td></tr><tr><td>School environment</td><td>+ Collegial support</td><td>Enabled teachers to effectively troubleshoot technical issues, and build on each other's designs</td></tr><tr><td>± Appropriate makerspaces</td><td>Supported authentic, kinaesthetic, flexible design processes</td></tr><tr><td>- Insufficient time for teachers and students</td><td>Limited the extent to which teachers could plan, experiment, and actually implement their module within the timetable</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher capabilities and beliefs</td><td>+ Professional learning</td><td>Improves teacher confidence and knowledge to teach in makerspaces</td></tr><tr><td>+ Experience</td><td>Increases teacher confidence and positively influences their identity as "makers"</td></tr><tr><td>- Teacher technological confidence</td><td>Constrained implementation initially if teachers felt unsure how to navigate and operate the app</td></tr><tr><td>- Teacher technological knowledge</td><td>Impeded learning if teachers were unable to direct students on best ways to use the app</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0143251238-14">Discussion and conclusion</hd> <p>The findings from this study as summarised in Table 3 suggest that effective teaching in makerspaces that incorporate 3D design and printing tasks appears to involve the integration of a range of learning and teaching considerations relating to pedagogical implementation, task design, learner knowledge and activity, technology, school environment, as well as teacher capabilities and beliefs. These principles for effective learning and teaching in makerspaces are summarised in Figure 3.</p> <p>The fact that effective pedagogies raised by the teachers (explicit instruction, modelling, open-ended inquiry, resources and supports, class discussion, questioning strategies, reinforcement and revision, scaffolds, and groupwork) appear to align with general learning and teaching recommendations is unsurprising – teaching in makerspaces is simply a new learning and teaching context. However, the way in which those pedagogies are operationalised does require specific makerspaces knowledge (for instance, how to model, scaffold, etc. the 3D design and 3D printing tasks, as outlined in the Findings section).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 3. Evidence-based framework for learning and teaching in makerspaces.</p> <p>According to the teachers, designing effective makerspaces tasks does appear to involve some unique attributes – in particular, the use of authentic and extended design tasks to support creative and deep integrative thinking, the explicit use of a design thinking framework to guide activity across lessons, and the use of offline tasks to help students translate between their digital design activities and the 3D products they were creating. While building upon student enthusiasm, supporting the use of technology, addressing student misconceptions and so on are quite typical student-related issues, understanding the nature of those misconceptions (e.g., students thinking they could print working robots), the way in which to support technological development, and so on, especially for young learners, does constitute a new suite of skills for teachers when teaching in makerspaces.</p> <p>For this reason, it appears imperative for teachers to have access to appropriate professional learning to build their knowledge and confidence with technology-based teaching in makerspaces, noting that additional knowledge and confidence may only come from the actual experience of having taught in makerspaces. As well, the school environment, including the technological environment, constitute critical first-order barriers that influence makerspaces learning and teaching. In particular, teachers from this study indicated the importance of having appropriate makerspaces, software, hardware, connectivity, support and time to successfully implement their 3D design and 3D printing modules of work. Hence effective learning and teaching in makerspaces is about good teaching generally, but also incorporates contextually specific makerspaces knowledge and infrastructure. At this stage, it is important to point out the relationship between the supports and constraints that emerged from the analysis, with many pedagogical approaches being applied as a result of the learner and environmental issues that teachers identified. For instance, teachers often prescribed offline tasks to address shortages in technological resources (such as iPad access), or used teacher modelling and scaffolds in response to student misconceptions. While the instrumentation and analysis did not track or describe all linkages between supports and constraints due to the large number of possible relationships, the makerspaces learning design framework presented above does provide a range of strategies that educators could utilise in response to identified constraints.</p> <p>Many of the observations raised in previous research were affirmed by this study. Examples include following a design cycle and leveraging constructive peer feedback (from Oliver, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref49">23</reflink>]), the use of positive collaboration and extended design tasks (in accordance with Papavlasopoulou et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref50">26</reflink>]), as well as the use of community-oriented teaching approaches, providing explicit guidance, facilitating whole-group discussions, using questioning strategies, and understanding the technology (from Vossoughi & Bevan, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref51">36</reflink>]). However, many other strategies, supports and issues arose in this study that were not raised in previous research, such as the role of resources, supports and scaffolds, the importance of reinforcement and revision, the potential of offline tasks to complement online work, the sorts of misconceptions and learning challenges that may arise, and the importance of professional learning. To that extent, and through the presentation of an integrated makerspaces learning design framework, our systematic analysis across 24 separate makerspaces has been able to derive new knowledge for the field.</p> <p>The findings of this study also have several implications for teachers and educational leaders. Teaching in makerspaces is a complex pursuit that may involve specific, contextually-oriented learning for teachers (for instance, how to operate the technology, how to support design-thinking processes, how to anticipate and address student misconceptions about 3D design, and so on). There are also a range of pedagogies to integrate into the one unit of work, with considerations such as how to create and facilitate authentic and extended design tasks potentially being a new challenge for many teachers. To that extent, it is important that teachers are provided with adequate professional learning and planning time to acquire the requisite skills and capabilities. Correspondingly, school and system leaders can play a significant role in supporting makerspaces learning and teaching in schools. This not only takes the form of providing teachers with professional learning and adequate time for planning and execution of their makerspaces modules, but also ensuring that teachers and students have adequate and reliable resources as well as appropriate maker spaces. Additionally, cultivating a school environment that encourages collegial support and experimentation may help teachers to build their confidence to engage in maker space-based teaching.</p> <p>However, like any research, there were limitations to this study. Firstly, the two primary data sources – the teacher reflective journals and the post-implementation focus group interviews – related to teacher perceptions of influences rather than the objective measurement of influence according to observations of student performance. However, as mentioned in the methodology, it is highly challenging to objectively measure and compare student learning outcomes in makerspaces across different classes, given the large number of different focuses and often subjective outcomes that may be targeted in various makerspaces modules. At the same time, given the wide variety of different learning designs that may be applied, it is equally challenging to reliably and accurately determine cause and effect relationships between teacher pedagogy and student learning outcomes. Accordingly, the research team drew upon the expertise of the teachers, recording their observations in situ, and reflecting on their experiences ex-post facto, to determine supports and constraints during makerspaces-based learning and teaching. We contend that according to the research question and the authentic research context, drawing upon the reflections of a number of teachers working across different classes (rather than the perceptions of the research team) was the most reliable way to identify pedagogical supports and constraints in makerspaces learning environments.</p> <p>Another limitation of this study is that it only related to 24 teachers from three primary schools teaching at Kindergarten to Year 2 level and utilising 3D design and printing using one set of technologies. Consequently, readers are encouraged to consider the extent to which the results may or may not be generalisable to other year levels, jurisdictions, technologies or makerspaces environments, and researchers are encouraged to explore what supports and constrains makerspaces learning in other contexts. However, we note that drawing evidence from the execution of 24 separate makerspaces classes is a substantial advance on the previous makerspaces research we reviewed, which has typically focused on combining or contrasting findings from a maximum of three makerspaces environments or classes at any one time.</p> <p>Amidst the identified potential of makerspaces in schools (Freeman et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref52">12</reflink>]), and the calls for students to developing authentic STEM and 21<sups>st</sups> Century capabilities (Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref53">5</reflink>]; Luna Scott, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref54">19</reflink>]; Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref55">24</reflink>]; UNESCO, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref56">35</reflink>]), educators and researchers need an evidence base upon which to found their teaching and analysis. A recent analysis of 21 learning design models by Bower and Vlachopoulos ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref57">3</reflink>]) concluded that only one of the frameworks (a blogging framework by Kerawalla et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref58">16</reflink>]) was actually based upon empirical evidence, but that basing the framework upon research findings enabled it to be more comprehensive, reliable and applicable. In a similar way, we intend that the empirically-grounded pedagogical framework based on the analysis of 24 makerspaces classes presented in this study, provides a robust and useful framework for understanding and analysing learning and teaching in makerspaces.</p> <hd id="AN0143251238-15">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>Approval for undertaking this study was granted by both the researchers' University Ethics Committee, and the NSW Department of Education. This study was funded in part by an AusIndustry Innovation Connections Grant, the NSW Department of Education, and Makers Empire. The University ethics process adheres with the Australian National Statement on the Ethical Conduct of Human Research 2007 updated 2018, which requires independent and unbiased analysis and reporting of research results. None of the research team involved in this study have any financial interest in the technology platforms used in this study.Reliability and validity of findings are reinforced by reporting of primary data. Refer to <ulink href="http://primarymakers.com">http://primarymakers.com</ulink> for a full report on this study, including samples of primary data and extended analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0143251238-16">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <hd id="AN0143251238-17">Appendix 1.</hd> <p>Reflective Journal Questions</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> When did the lesson occur?</item> <p></p> <item> Where did the lesson occur?</item> <p></p> <item> What was the overall design of the lesson?</item> <p></p> <item> How did you feel the lesson went?</item> <p></p> <item> How did the students respond (e.g., emotionally and behaviourally) to the different sections of the lesson and how do you know?</item> <p></p> <item> What knowledge and skills did you feel that the students learnt during the lesson?</item> <p></p> <item> What were the main difficulties that students experienced and why (and how did they deal or not deal with them)?</item> <p></p> <item> Did you notice any specific misconceptions that students held and were these able to be resolved?</item> <p></p> <item> Did you try any particular teaching approaches/strategies during your lesson, and if so, how well did they work?</item> <p></p> <item> Overall, what best supported learning in this lesson and why?</item> <p></p> <item> Overall, what would help improve learning next time and why?</item> <p></p> <item> Other (any other thoughts)</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0143251238-18">Appendix 2.</hd> <p>Teacher Focus Group Questions</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Please explain to what you and your students did in your makerspace module.</item> <p></p> <item> What were the best parts of the module and why?</item> <p></p> <item> What didn't work so well during the module? How come?</item> <p></p> <item> Describe how the makerspace you used supported (or not) your delivery of the module ...</item> <p></p> <item> What changes would you recommend to the makerspace/s you were using? How come?</item> <p></p> <item> Do you have any evidence that suggests this affected or impacted upon the quality of students' learning?</item> <p></p> <item> How would you describe student motivation and engagement during the activities compared to your usual classes? To what did you attribute this difference? What indicators support this judgement?</item> <p></p> <item> Did you notice any difference in students' self-confidence and self-esteem as a result of the module? What indicators support this judgement?</item> <p></p> <item> What did students learn when undertaking maker activities and how do you know?</item> <p></p> <item> What were the main things you learnt as a result of running the maker module? This can relate to teaching in makerspaces, teaching with technology, or teaching more generally.</item> <p></p> <item> Did you notice any changes in your attitudes or approaches towards teaching? If so, what were they?</item> <p></p> <item> What aspects of the professional learning support were most useful to you in preparing you to run the maker module with your classes?</item> <p></p> <item> What recommendations can you make for professional learning in order to best support you to run maker modules in your classes?</item> </ulist> <ref id="AN0143251238-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref21" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of Making in science education. Studies in Science Education, 53 (1), 75 – 103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1275380</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref39" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bower, M. (2017). Design of technology-enhanced learning - Integrating research and practice. Emerald Publishing Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref43" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bower, M., & Vlachopoulos, P. (2018). A critical analysis of technology‐enhanced learning design frameworks. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49 (6), 981 – 997. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12668</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref35" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bowler, L., & Champagne, R. (2016). Mindful makers: Question prompts to help guide young peoples' critical technical practices in maker spaces in libraries, museums, and community-based youth organizations. Library & Information Science Research, 38 (2), 117 – 124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2016.04.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref4" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development. (2017). Working group on education: Digital skills for life and work. Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002590/259013e.pdf">http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002590/259013e.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref47" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Burke Johnson, R., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research - Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (Fifth edition). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref14" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (2017). Maker principles and technologies in teacher education: A national survey. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25 (1), 5 – 30. https://<ulink href="http://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/172304/">www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/172304/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref20" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Dewey, J. (1938). Experiential education. Collier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref19" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Doise, W., Mugny, G., James, A. S., Emler, N., & Mackie, D. (2013). The social development of the intellect (Vol. 10). Elsevier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59 (2), 423 – 435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forest, C. R., Moore, R. A., Jariwala, A. S., Fasse, B. B., Linsey, J., Newstetter, W., ... Quintero, C. (2014). The invention studio: A university maker space and culture. Advances in Engineering Education, 4 (2), 1 – 32. https://<ulink href="http://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/172304/">www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/172304/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeman, A., Becker, S. A., & Cummins, M. (2017). NMC/CoSN horizon report: 2017 K-12. The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.nmc.org/publication/nmccosn-horizon-report-2017-k-12-edition/">www.nmc.org/publication/nmccosn-horizon-report-2017-k-12-edition/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (2010). Learning, technology and design. In P. Goodyear & S. Retalis (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning - Design patterns and pattern languages (pp. 1 – 28). Sense Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84 (4), 495 – 504. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harron, J. R., & Hughes, J. E. (2018). Spacemakers: A leadership perspective on curriculum and the purpose of K–12 educational makerspaces. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50 (3), 253 – 270. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2018.1461038</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kerawalla, L., Minocha, S., Kirkup, G., & Conole, G. (2009). An empirically grounded framework to guide blogging in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25 (1), 31 – 42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00286.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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 – 129. https://doi.org/10.3138/jelis.56.2.114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kurti, R. S., Kurti, D. L., & Fleming, L. (2014). The philosophy of educational makerspaces part 1 of making an educational makerspace. Teacher Librarian, 41 (5), 8 – 11. <ulink href="http://www.evergreeneducation.org/itie2016/KurtiArticlePart1.pdf">http://www.evergreeneducation.org/itie2016/KurtiArticlePart1.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luna Scott, C. (2015). The Futures of Learning 3: What kind of pedagogies for the 21st century? UNESCO Education Research and Foresight. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002431/243126e.pdf">http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002431/243126e.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5 (1), 30 – 39. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1099</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017 – 1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/tcre.2006.108.issue-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moorefield-Lang, H. (2015). Change in the making: Makerspaces and the ever-changing landscape of libraries. TechTrends, 59 (3), 107 – 112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0860-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf">http://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paganelli, A., Cribbs, J. D., 'Silvie'Huang, X., Pereira, N., Huss, J., Chandler, W., & Paganelli, A. (2017). The makerspace experience and teacher professional development. Professional Development in Education, 43 (2), 232 – 235. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1166448</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2017). Empirical studies on the Maker Movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review. Entertainment Computing, 18, 57 – 78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2016.09.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papert, S. (1986). Constructionism: A new opportunity for elementary science education. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Media Laboratory, Epistemology and Learning Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95 (3), 22 – 27. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171309500306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peppler, K., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y. B. (2016). Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. SAGE publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slatter, D., & Howard, Z. (2013). A place to make, hack, and learn: Makerspaces in Australian public libraries. The Australian Library Journal, 62 (4), 272 – 284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2013.853335</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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). https://doi.org/10.1145/2485760.2485811</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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), 1260 –1274. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12743</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> UNESCO. (2015). Incheon Declaration Education 2030: Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all. Symposium conducted at the meeting of World Education, Incheon, Republic of Korea. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002338/233813M.pdf">http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002338/233813M.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (2014). Making and tinkering: A review of the literature. In National research council committee on out of school time STEM (pp. 1 – 55). https://ccst.us/wp-content/uploads/svossoughi-makingandtinkering.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wardrip, P. S., & Brahms, L. (2015). Learning practices of making: Developing a framework for design. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 14th international conference on interaction design and children, Boston, MA.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Matt Bower; Michael Stevenson; Anne Forbes; Garry Falloon and Maria Hatzigianni</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref58"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1254546
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Makerspaces Pedagogy -- Supports and Constraints during 3D Design and 3D Printing Activities in Primary Schools
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bower%2C+Matt%22">Bower, Matt</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4161-5816">0000-0002-4161-5816</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stevenson%2C+Michael%22">Stevenson, Michael</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3720-1888">0000-0003-3720-1888</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Forbes%2C+Anne%22">Forbes, Anne</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6383-8351">0000-0001-6383-8351</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Falloon%2C+Garry%22">Falloon, Garry</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6369-8771">0000-0002-6369-8771</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hatzigianni%2C+Maria%22">Hatzigianni, Maria</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9378-2598">0000-0001-9378-2598</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Media+International%22"><i>Educational Media International</i></searchLink>. 2020 57(1):1-28.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 28
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Shared+Resources+and+Services%22">Shared Resources and Services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Printing%22">Printing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Design%22">Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Activities%22">Learning Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22STEM+Education%22">STEM Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Constructivism+%28Learning%29%22">Constructivism (Learning)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reflection%22">Reflection</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/09523987.2020.1744845
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0952-3987
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Makerspaces have been heralded as an effective way to support the development of 21st Century and STEM capabilities, yet there is a paucity of systematic, multiple-case analysis to guide educator and researcher practice. This collective case study examined 24 primary school classroom contexts to understand what supports and constrains learning and teaching in technology-oriented makerspaces. Thematic analysis of 24 teacher in-situ reflective journals and focus group interviews of all teacher participants revealed 19 supports and 11 constraints, relating to pedagogy, task design, learner attributes, technological factors, the school environment, and teacher capabilities and beliefs. These were used to form an evidence-based framework for learning and teaching in makerspaces. Findings are discussed in relation to previous research which has tended to be anecdotal and based on single cases. Implications for future teaching, research and policy initiatives are also detailed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1254546
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1254546
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/09523987.2020.1744845
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 28
        StartPage: 1
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Shared Resources and Services
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Printing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: STEM Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Constructivism (Learning)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Primary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reflection
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Makerspaces Pedagogy -- Supports and Constraints during 3D Design and 3D Printing Activities in Primary Schools
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bower, Matt
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stevenson, Michael
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Forbes, Anne
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Falloon, Garry
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hatzigianni, Maria
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0952-3987
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 57
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Media International
              Type: main
ResultId 1