An Analysis of the Nature of Young Students' STEM Learning in 3D Technology-Enhanced Makerspaces
Saved in:
| Title: | An Analysis of the Nature of Young Students' STEM Learning in 3D Technology-Enhanced Makerspaces |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Forbes, Anne (ORCID |
| Source: | Early Education and Development. 2021 32(1):172-187. |
| 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: | 16 |
| Publication Date: | 2021 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research Tests/Questionnaires |
| Education Level: | Elementary Education |
| Descriptors: | STEM Education, Technology Uses in Education, Foreign Countries, Elementary School Students, Learning Processes, Learner Engagement, Shared Resources and Services, Computer Peripherals, Teacher Attitudes, Student Attitudes, Handheld Devices, Resilience (Psychology), Skill Development |
| Geographic Terms: | Australia |
| DOI: | 10.1080/10409289.2020.1781325 |
| ISSN: | 1040-9289 |
| Abstract: | Research Findings: This study was undertaken to investigate learning processes and outcomes from using 3D design and printing technologies with children aged 5-8 years, in three schools in a metropolitan city in Australia. Data were collected from five sources (teacher interviews, surveys, journals; student interviews; and iPad screen recordings) and analyzed to identify themes responding to the question: What is the nature of students' learning and learning processes in technology-enhanced Makerspaces? Findings report the perspectives of teachers and students, supplemented by screen recordings from the iPads. Students were found to have significant engagement in learning through involvement in these technology-enhanced Makerspaces, and to have developed skills and understanding in a number of areas including: digital technical proficiency, design thinking, problem solving, critical thinking, collaboration, and communication. Findings are conceptualized using a research-informed Maker Literacies Framework, to better understand the nature of students' learning and work processes while engaged in these environments. Practice or Policy: Findings imply that Makerspaces with 3D design and printing could be used to promote young children's STEM literacies although teachers need to be mindful of the need to explicitly plan for and teach important STEM concepts, if learning in these disciplines is a goal. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2021 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1279148 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHQ2iR0gFuauac2Al03nrWxAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKPIsCfOUFHVbyl_oQIBEICBmycVLzhxE7edwwfOX8A4jb6Tqx4hygxfqXJpevYO6rP1pwbPB_dSL-0TSrDxgBtFjhJ4-28zilQfu5QfY1wNFhbbp8aAhcHCkAQ9WdvdrSCConzK3gLToPRUBTMQgBbdo_Y-a-rii76G7UzGK3-cBzUzGNmDnqQRMv_NlV1_G86I1QpTmXMj6v-Vvgx9yCKikN5cR0YlK6V9-bWw Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0147454447;h4j01jan.21;2020Dec09.01:18;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0147454447-1">An Analysis of the Nature of Young Students' STEM Learning in 3D Technology-Enhanced Makerspaces </title> <sbt id="AN0147454447-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>Research Findings: This study was undertaken to investigate learning processes and outcomes from using 3D design and printing technologies with children aged 5–8 years, in three schools in a metropolitan city in Australia. Data were collected from five sources (teacher interviews, surveys, journals; student interviews; and iPad screen recordings) and analyzed to identify themes responding to the question: What is the nature of students' learning and learning processes in technology-enhanced Makerspaces? Findings report the perspectives of teachers and students, supplemented by screen recordings from the iPads. Students were found to have significant engagement in learning through involvement in these technology-enhanced Makerspaces, and to have developed skills and understanding in a number of areas including: digital technical proficiency, design thinking, problem solving, critical thinking, collaboration, and communication. Findings are conceptualized using a research-informed Maker Literacies Framework, to better understand the nature of students' learning and work processes while engaged in these environments. Practice or Policy: Findings imply that Makerspaces with 3D design and printing could be used to promote young children's STEM literacies although teachers need to be mindful of the need to explicitly plan for and teach important STEM concepts, if learning in these disciplines is a goal.</p> <p>Over the past ten years, there have been increasing calls for the development of school students' STEM capabilities, because collectively, the STEM disciplines encompass the knowledge and technical skills that many governments, policymakers and educators regard as crucial for the future (Australian Education Council, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]; Caprile et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref2">7</reflink>]; Marginson et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref3">15</reflink>]; U.K Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref4">24</reflink>]; U.S Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref5">25</reflink>]). Aligned with this has been the rise of the Maker movement and the development of Makerspaces in schools and public places. Some researchers point to the value of Making for providing opportunities for students to build STEM discipline knowledge and skills, through tasks involving the operationalization of STEM concepts and practical design and production knowledge to develop or model artifacts responding to "real world" problems, needs or opportunities (Bevan, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref6">3</reflink>]; Freeman et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref7">9</reflink>]). These capabilities are often aligned with <emph>soft skills</emph> or <emph>21st Century skills</emph>, which Heckman and Kautz ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref8">12</reflink>]) describe as "the skills, personality traits, goals, motivations and preferences that are valued in the labour market, in school, and in many other domains" (p. 451). More specifically, research has identified broad benefits from engaging students in Making activities particularly across cognitive, psychomotor, and socioemotional domains, where studies suggest Making can enhance valued capabilities including problem solving, critical and creative thinking, self-regulation, collaboration and self-efficacy, as well as higher order cognitive processes and physical and digital technology skills (Ortega, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref9">19</reflink>]; Vossoughi &amp; Bevan, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref10">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>While some studies are emerging reporting positive outcomes from older students' activities using digital tools in Makerspaces (e.g., Papavlasopoulou et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref11">21</reflink>]), according to Marsh et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref12">16</reflink>]), "the specific concerns of early childhood educators in the area are rarely addressed in the literature" (p. 2). They highlight the largely unexplored potential of Makerspaces in early years education to support young children's development across Operational (e.g., use of tools, properties of materials and media); Cultural (e.g., design principles, interpretation/analysis of artifacts, personal and affective influences) and Critical (e.g., reflective, justifying and explaining decisions, communicating/disseminating outcomes) learning competencies, noting the possibilities presented by using new digital tools such as 3D technologies (apps and printers) in Makerspaces to, "develop knowledge in the realms of science and engineering" (Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref13">16</reflink>], p. 5). Responding to this, the following discussion reports outcomes from a study involving 5–7 year old students using 3D technologies in classroom Makerspaces, during units of learning focused on designing, producing and evaluating a range of artifacts developed to meet different needs and opportunities. It investigates and analyzes participating students' work processes, identifying and discussing evidence indicating the extent to which their Makerspaces activities facilitated development of STEM conceptual knowledge and Operational, Cultural and Critical Competencies. This study is timely and important, because it builds understanding of the nature of young children's learning in these Makerspaces, identifying practical knowledge of value for enhancing teaching practice and pedagogy in these emerging, digitally-enhanced learning environments.</p> <hd id="AN0147454447-3">A Review of Literature</hd> <p>Research over many years in science education has pointed to the importance of the early years of schooling for forming positive attitudes toward science disciplines, and of the need for young children to be introduced to STEM concepts at a time when critical "learning identities" are formed (e.g., Brown et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref14">5</reflink>]; Gee, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref15">10</reflink>]; Osborne et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref16">20</reflink>]; Tan &amp; Barton, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref17">23</reflink>]). Zollman ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref18">28</reflink>]) argues that students need to start building a positive <emph>STEM identity</emph> at an early age, enabled through activities, tasks and processes that require higher order and reflective cognitive processing. Some authors identify Makerspaces as providing ideal contexts for implementing STEM-focussed curricula (e.g., Henriksen, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref19">13</reflink>]; Niederhauser &amp; Schrum, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref20">17</reflink>]). Based on empirical findings from international studies and reports, Vossoughi and Bevan ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref21">26</reflink>]) meta-analysis identified three key benefits of Maker-based learning activities. First, they provide opportunities for greater participation in science environments where students are able to investigate real world scientific phenomena and create different representations to demonstrate understanding. Second, Makerspaces can support the development of students' academic and discipline knowledge by encouraging the integration of STEM disciplines in an authentic way. Third, Makerspaces enable the creation of communities of learners – both teachers and students – who learn in partnership through the sharing of problem-solving strategies, design ideas, and artifacts.</p> <p>Digital forms of making have been regarded as enabling authentic and situated learning opportunities, while encouraging digital literacies (Canessa et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref22">6</reflink>]). Marsh et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref23">16</reflink>]) developed a <emph>Maker Literacies Framework</emph> for identifying and understanding the processes, skills, and knowledge involved in meaning and artifact creation in Makerspaces involving young children. The framework provided a valuable theoretical referent for understanding the learning and work processes of the young children in our study. Marsh et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref24">16</reflink>]) framework describes three dimensions: Operational, Cultural and Critical, which describe, in general terms, the knowledge, skills and values demonstrated by students as they engage in Making tasks. This framework was developed from the earlier work of Green ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref25">11</reflink>]), to inform an understanding of digital literacy developed in the European Cooperation in Science and Technology [COST] Action DigiLitEY Project (Sefton-Green et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref26">22</reflink>]). The project, which focused on children aged 0–8 years, was designed to establish a research agenda for the digital literacy and multimodal practices of young children, using an interdisciplinary framework that enabled researchers to synthesize existing related research to identify knowledge gaps across the European research community. We argue that extending the concepts contained in Marsh et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref27">16</reflink>]) framework to young children's physical and digital construction and creation processes in emerging 3D Makerspaces, helped us to better interpret and understand the "learning value" inherent in such tasks, supporting important knowledge building to inform Maker pedagogy and practice. With schools moving toward or already implementing 3D technologies and Makerspaces, teachers need guidance for identifying student learning processes and outcomes in these environments. It is hoped this framework provides insights into those processes.</p> <hd id="AN0147454447-4">Study Context and Background</hd> <p>The <emph>Makerspaces in Primary School Settings</emph> project (Bower et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref28">4</reflink>]) was a voluntary research collaboration between a university, schools and technology company, investigating 3D design and printing in Makerspaces in Kindergarten to Year 2 (K-2). Makers Empire[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>] – an Australian-based company behind the development of a cross-platform software for 3D design and printing – provided a blended professional learning program to 24 teachers from three Department of Education primary schools (identified as School A, B and C) in a large Australian city. Participating teachers and their students in twenty-four classes (Kindergarten, n = 12; Year 1, n = 7; Year 2, n = 5) were invited to participate in research associated with the program, focused on understanding the learning processes and outcomes of students engaged in the Making tasks. Teachers and students were given access to the company's software installed on school-provided iPads, which were connected to 3D printers. Teachers designed and delivered units of work integrating both offline and online Maker activities along with physical materials, to approximately 500K-2 students. None of the teachers had used 3D technologies before, and none reported having prior experience of teaching in Makerspaces. Throughout the professional learning program and implementation, and post-implementation evaluation, university researchers collected data to examine the nature of students' learning and learning processes while using 3D design and 3D printing technology.</p> <p>Tables 1 and 2 present profile summaries of the participants. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the university's research ethics committee and via the relevant state education research approval process. In accordance with ethical protocols, pseudonyms and other non-identifiers have been used to report results.</p> <p>Table 1. Participant profile summary</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;School&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Teacher information&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Student information&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;Total teachers&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Years teaching (mean)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Total students&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Number of classes&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn2" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Number of students per grade&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;A&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;13&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.97&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;312&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;K = 6&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;K = 144&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;1 = 5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1 = 120&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;2 = 2&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2 = 48&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;B&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;10.67&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;66&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;K = 3&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;K = 66&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;1 = 0&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1 = 0&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;2 = 0&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2 = 0&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;C&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;8&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;21.22&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;198&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;K = 3&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;K = 72&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;1 = 2&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1 = 48&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;2 = 3&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2 = 72&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2. Teacher profile summary</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;School&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Grade&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Gender&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Name&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;A&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;K&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;F&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Amanda, Amber, Ella, Jasmine, Jenna, Samantha&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;A&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;F&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Abigail, Dawn, Diana, Emma, Sophie&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;A&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;F&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Kim, Kirsten&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;B&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;K&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;F&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Mackenzie, Madalyn&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;M&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Timothy&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;C&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;K&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;F&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Julie, Nadia, Sally&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;C&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;F&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Penny, Rachel&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;C&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;F&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Hannah, Jane, Molly&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>During the face-to-face component of the professional learning program the facilitator used the IDEO (Innovation Design Engineering Organization) <emph>Design Thinking for Educators</emph> instructional model (Fierst et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref30">8</reflink>]), to introduce concepts underpinning design thinking to the teachers. The model was selected as it provided an easy to understand and implement sequence comprising the main stages of a design process for guiding teachers' planning and delivery of their Makerspaces units. Adopting such a structure was important, as this was the first time any of the teachers had undertaken a learning unit of this nature, none were familiar with the technology being used, and few had experience with design processes that were integral to the success of this endeavor. The IDEO model uses the five phases of <emph>Discovery, Interpretation, Ideation, Experimentation</emph>, and <emph>Evolution</emph> to scaffold the "design process", which teachers then used to design and structure activities in their units. Using the <emph>Design Thinking for Educators Toolkit</emph> (Innovation Design Engineering Organization [IDEO], [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref31">14</reflink>]) teachers followed the IDEO model, undertaking professional learning activities to better understand each of the phases. <emph>Discovery</emph> involved understanding the challenge and gathering inspiration; <emph>Interpretation</emph> related to searching for meaning and framing opportunities; <emph>Ideation</emph> focussed on idea generating and refining for solutions; <emph>Experimentation</emph> involved making prototypes and gathering feedback; and <emph>Evolution</emph> concentrated on evaluating what had been learned, and using that as a basis for progression. The importance of having a "problem" to inform artifact design and development was emphasized, which aligns with other instructional models such as Problem and Project-Based Learning where real-world scenarios provide authentic challenges, prompting students to investigate, propose and/or design possible solutions. For young children, authentic problem opportunities often relate to their life experiences at home and school, so teachers generally linked their Makerspace units to familiar scenarios such as toys, school activities and pets (Table 3).</p> <p>Table 3. Topic foci for the Makerspaces units</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;School&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Grade&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Teachers&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Topic&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;A&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;K&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Amanda, Amber, Ella, Jasmine, Jenna, Samantha&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Floatable boats&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;A&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Abigail, Diana, Dawn, Emma, Sophie&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Shadow puppets&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;A&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Diana&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Headphone cable holders&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;A&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Kirsten&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Spinning tops&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;A&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Kim, Kirsten&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Playground sculptures&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;B&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;K&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Mackenzie, Madalyn, Timothy&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Habitat for hermit crabs&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;C&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Penny, Rachel&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Herb markers&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;C&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Jane, Hannah&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Designing keyrings&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;C&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Hannah&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Bag tags&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>Several of these problems were STEM-focused, providing contextual opportunities for students to engage with STEM knowledge and processes to produce solutions. For example, the "shadow puppet" unit provided inquiry opportunities for students to investigate scientifically the ways in which light interacted with materials – which materials were opaque, transparent or translucent, and that the shape of the shadow was due to light traveling in straight lines. The "Homes for Hermit Crabs" unit provided students with opportunities to observe the behavior and requirements of living animals to identify their basic needs, for which they then designed and produced supportive living environments. The floatable boats unit provided opportunities for children to investigate the floating and sinking attributes of objects and to apply this knowledge to their boat designs and models.</p> <hd id="AN0147454447-5">Data Collection</hd> <p>Data were collected responding to this question: <emph>What is the nature of students' learning and learning processes in technology-enhanced Makerspaces</emph>? A multiple case study approach was adopted, with five data sources used to triangulate findings. A multiple case study approach enables researchers to explore differences and similarities within and between cases. Because comparisons will be drawn, it is imperative that the cases are chosen carefully so that the researcher can identify similar results across cases (Yin, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref32">27</reflink>]). This approach was selected due to the requirements of the research question, which focused on exploration of the range of learning processes and outcomes for students in the twenty-four classes. According to Yin ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref33">27</reflink>]), research validity can be enhanced by using multiple data sources and maintaining a chain of evidence. In this study, validity was supported by reporting the views of 24 teachers and 500K-2 students from three different schools, supplemented by screen recordings made on students' iPads. This enabled emerging themes in data to be triangulated, through reference to multiple sources and sites of evidence. Furthermore, research reliability has been enhanced via clear and detailed descriptions of the study's design, how data were collected and analyzed, providing sufficient data samples to illustrate coding decisions, and through reporting limitations to the study. While recognizing the purpose of this study was not the generation of universally-applicable methods or results, clarity of presentation in these key areas enhances its trustworthiness.</p> <p>Qualitative data were collected in three ways: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref34">1</reflink>) from teachers through focus group interviews, open ended survey responses and reflective journal entries; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref35">2</reflink>) from students through focus groups; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref36">3</reflink>) from students' iPad screen recordings. These data captured what students were doing and learning through several lenses, which allowed, "for multiple facets of the phenomenon to be revealed and understood" (Baxter &amp; Jack, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>], p. 544). In this study, the phenomenon was what and how students were learning while undertaking Maker activities using 3D technologies. Details of how data were collected, are summarized in Appendix A.</p> <hd id="AN0147454447-6">Data Analysis</hd> <p>Qualitative data collected from the five sources were analyzed using <emph>QSR NVivo</emph>, Version 11. In all cases, data were coded inductively, a process where category systems and codes were generated by directly examining each dataset, rather than generated <emph>a priori</emph> (that is, prior to examining each set). Where possible, the research team used emic terms – that is, terms used by the participants themselves, and qualitative data were enumerated to show the prevalence of key themes by outlining occurrence frequency. Given the need to analyze data throughout the project, an inductive approach was necessary to enable emergent findings to be captured and reported as the project developed. Table 4 summarizes codes and their description/definition generated from data, while Table 5 presents numerical summaries of the occurrence frequency of each code.</p> <p>Table 4. Codes generated from data with descriptions/definitions</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Code category&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Code description/definition&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Technical proficiency&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Student knowledge and skills in using software (3D design app) and hardware (3D printer)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Design thinking&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Student use of the IDEO "design process" to develop outcomes&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Problem solving, critical thinking &amp; reflective thinking&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Student application of analytical thinking to solve problems or issues&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Collaboration/communication&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Students working with others to solve problems or issues&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Engagement&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Students' heightened interest and engagement in activities&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Creativity&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Students using original ideas and imagination to solve problems or issues&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Attitudes/dispositions &lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;autonomy (A)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;resilience (R)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;risk-taking (RT)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Students' "ways of acting" in their Makerspaces activities: &lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;recognition that Makerspaces activities allow freedom, choice, and "creative license"&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;capacity to recover/"bounce back" when difficulties arise&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;willingness to undertake activities or place themselves in positions where outcomes are unknown&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Maker efficacy&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Students' views of themselves as "Makers"&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Real world links&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Students linking design solutions to knowledge of real-world contexts&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Science/mathematics knowledge&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Students' development or use of science and/or mathematics knowledge as they solve problems&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 5. Data occurrence frequency by source, aligned with Marsh et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref38">16</reflink>]) Maker Literacies Framework</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Marsh Domain/s &lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn3" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Marsh Dimension &lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn4" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Student learning and skill development outcomes&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Teacher perspectives&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Student perspectives&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Digital capture&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Occurrence frequency (n)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Occurrence frequency (%)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Teacher focus groups (FG), survey (S), journals (J)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Student focus groups&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;iPad screen capture&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Freq (n)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Total (n)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Total (%)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Freq (n)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Freq (%)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Freq (n)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Freq (%)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Design Production&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Operational&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Technical proficiency&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;57 (J)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;57&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;12&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;63&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;14&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;630&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;34&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;807&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;28&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Design thinking&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;35 (J)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;35&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;8&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;83&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;18&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;534&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;28&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;652&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;23&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Design Production Interpretation&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Critical&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Problem solving, critical and reflective thinking&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;16 (J), 21 (FG) 35 (S)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;72&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;15&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;93&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;20&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;359&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;19&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;524&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;18&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Design Production Interpretation&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Cultural&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Collaboration/ communication&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;47 (J), 40 (FG), 11 (S)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;98&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;21&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;24&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;233&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;12&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;355&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;12.5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Production Interpretation&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Cultural&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Engagement&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;121 (J), 18 (FG), 8 (S)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;147&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;31&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;67&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;15&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;123&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;7&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;337&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;12&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Production&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Cultural Critical&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Creativity&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;8 (J), 6 (FG), 15 (S)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;29&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;6&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;52&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;11&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;-&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;-&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;81&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Interpretation&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Cultural&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Attitudes/dispositions &lt;list list-type="Bullet"&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;autonomy (A)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;resilience (R)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;list-item&gt;&lt;p&gt;risk taking (RT)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/list-item&gt;&lt;/list&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5 (R, FG) 6 (RT, S)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;11&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;24 (A)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;-&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;-&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;38&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Interpretation&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Cultural&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Maker efficacy&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;15 (FG)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;15&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;18&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;-&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;-&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;33&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Production Interpretation&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Critical&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Real world links&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;-&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;-&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;20&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;-&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;-&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;20&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Design Production Interpretation&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Critical&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Science/math knowledge&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4 (FG)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;14&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;-&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;-&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;18&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;TOTAL&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;468&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;99&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;458&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;99&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1879&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;100&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2862&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;100&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Data occurrence frequency by source, aligned with [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref39">16</reflink>] Maker Literacies Framework.</p> <hd id="AN0147454447-7">Findings</hd> <p>This section summarizes key findings, organized by data source. Emergent themes and statistical information aligned with each data source are summarized in Table 5. The codes illustrate the range of student learning and skill development outcomes displayed by students during the study, and include: technical proficiency; design thinking; problem solving, critical thinking and reflective thinking; collaboration/communication; engagement; creativity; attitudes/dispositions such as autonomy, resilience and risk-taking; Maker efficacy, real world links; and science/mathematics knowledge. Marsh et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref40">16</reflink>]) framework proved valuable for identifying the nature of students' learning in these Makerspaces, specifically understanding the blend of technical and conceptual knowledge they applied to tasks, and the skills they engaged while working individually and in teams. The majority of coded occurrences aligned with Marsh et al.'s Operational Dimension (<emph>using tools, materials, and processes</emph>, 51%). Occurrences coded under Marsh et al.'s Cultural Dimension (<emph>personal views and experiences</emph>) comprised 27% (collaboration/communication, 12.5%; engagement, 12%; creativity, attitudes and efficacy, 5.5%), while the Critical Dimension <emph>(using information/knowledge</emph>) comprised 22% (problem solving, critical and reflective thinking, 18%; creativity, real-world links and science/math knowledge, 4%). Table 5 summarizes data from the five sources arranged into three categories: teacher perspectives (journals, surveys and focus groups), student perspectives (focus groups) and digital capture (iPad display recordings) to enable a more organized presentation of data. Occurrence frequency and their alignment with Marsh et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref41">16</reflink>]) Maker Literacies Framework is also presented in the table.</p> <p>The next section presents findings related to student learning and processes from three perspectives: teachers' views via focus group interviews, reflective journals and responses to open-ended survey questions; students' views via focus group interviews; and iPad screen capture data. They are presented in this way to enable links to be made across data sources, supporting a more holistic understanding of the nature of students' learning and learning processes. Data are also aligned to Marsh et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref42">16</reflink>]) framework.</p> <hd id="AN0147454447-8">Teacher Perspectives</hd> <p>Data aligned with ten student learning and skill development outcomes from teacher data (see Table 5). Findings are arranged from highest to the lowest occurrence frequency, linked to Marsh et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref43">16</reflink>]) framework, and include participant quotes where relevant. Teachers observed high levels of student Engagement when working on their projects (31%, Cultural Dimension). Alice noted that her students became more engaged as their confidence with the 3D design app grew, to the point where she regarded them as, "the lead teachers". Jenna's students, "really enjoyed the app ... and were engaged the whole time", and Penny noted that every time she, "brings up the [app] screen, they sit ready, waiting eagerly". Diana commented that, "all students [in her class] were highly engaged during the entire project ... and I often had students asking when our next lesson was". Kim's students however, became, "a bit more competitive and a bit obsessed with gaining all those tokens to buy and upgrade characters and things".</p> <p>Teachers also noted high levels of Collaboration and Communication (21%, Cultural Dimension). Diana listed, "confidence ... communication ... [and] teamwork" as the main outcomes for her group work in this dimension, while in Molly's classroom, "everyone was interested and engaged in helping each other". Penny's students were particularly good at, "asking other students for help" and, "taking turns", while for Rachel, collaboration led to effective peer mentoring, where students in the class, "were talking, and if someone couldn't do something, someone would jump in and say, 'I'll show you how to do that' ... and they were helping each other". Amanda noticed an improvement in the standard of students' language skills where, "they were able to describe in a lot of detail what they'd change and how they'd change it and why they changed it" as did Kirsten, who commented that her students had, "learned how to work together and become much better at providing constructive feedback to their peers".</p> <p>Incidences of the application of students' analytical thinking skills were evidenced through data referencing Problem Solving, Critical and Reflective thinking (15%, Critical Dimension). Julia linked collaboration with problem-solving, "working with a partner gives them the opportunity to problem-solve together", while Alice described how students presented, "critical feedback in a positive manner ... promoting the development of reflective students". Similarly, Kirsten noted that students were, "critical in providing really constructive feedback through the design process". Jane commented that her students improved their problem-solving skills during the Design and Production phases, "I haven't given them any help, [and] between themselves, [they have] worked out how to make sure it's [the component] not going to fall off when it gets printed". Jenna noted that her, "students have been able to explore what it is like to learn in a future-focused setting ... they're able to investigate real world problems independently and explore their critical thinking skills and designing skills." Emma noted that her students could now, "critically reflect on their designs and test whether it creates the effect that they wanted". Julia's students shifted, "in thinking from 'I've done the task and I am finished' to 'I think I will keep working and try it another way". She also referred to improvements to, "the metalanguage of problem solving", observing that, "we now reflect more on the things we can't do, and what we can do to move forward". Almost half the teachers (n = 11) referred to students' lack of knowledge about what could and could not be successfully 3D-printed (Technical Proficiency, 12%; Operational Dimension) such as Julia and Kim who had students who did not understand how scale and size translated from the app, to the final 3D-printed product. For Amber, Amanda, Julia, Jenna and Kim, successfully logging in and navigating the app was considered a positive outcome, while Emma's students quickly gained proficiency, "in the initial tools I taught [Shaper], which meant they were able to confidently use new tools".</p> <p>Ten teachers (42%) commented on students having challenges with initiating their own designs (Design Thinking, 8%; Operational Dimension). For Alice and Hannah, students struggled with forming and asking questions, especially, in Alice's words, "thinking beyond obvious questions such as 'what's your favorite colour?" Emma's students were, "unclear on what to design" when thinking about characters to suit a narrative. Students' development of Creativity (6%, Cultural Dimension) was noted by Sophie to be enhanced through having a problem underpinning the design process, resulting in a, "creative challenge". Hannah felt that creativity in her students was a necessary precursor to technology use, arguing that, "you can get all the kids exposed to technology, but it [the unit] was quite complex, so they needed ... [to be] creative first, like ... visualizing something in their brain, like having the task, visualizing it, then creating it". She also saw a connection between creativity and the use of materials, referring to, "creativity [and] exploration using concrete materials, writing, drawing and technology".</p> <p>Maker efficacy (3%, Cultural Dimension) was noted by Sophie in her students, who showed increased confidence using technology, "which is a really big, important step for six- and seven-year-olds", while Penny pointed to one student in her class who was now, "absolutely busting to answer questions ... and just eloquently put it [the answer] into these sentences that I've not heard him speak before". Students' developing Attitudes/Dispositions (2%, Cultural Dimension) related to autonomy, resilience and risk-taking were noted by Amanda, who explained, "once they had the hand of that [mastered the Blocker feature], they were much more confident, and then they could all go and do that [task] independently". Ella noted the change in her students' resilience:</p> <p>A lot of them, their resilience [improved]. The kids that would just sort of give up learnt a lot more about persevering with it, and to keep trying, which was good. And the main thing that I loved was that they sort of found problems with their designs and they weren't really intimidated by that anymore. Whereas, I think that for a lot of kids in my class, they find they don't want to take risks, or they find like a problem with something is such a big deal, and it's a horrible thing.</p> <p>Rachel's students were more confident taking risks than previously, and as a result, "less afraid to make mistakes". Samantha believed that she had influenced her students, "by modeling risk taking, so they feel more confident in taking risks in their designs". Sally believed that her students were now willing to, "fail, but not giving up" when faced with challenges, while Andrea felt that students had, "learned to be risk-takers, to fail well and try again". Student's developing or applying Science/Mathematics knowledge (1%, Critical Dimension) was noted by both Abigail and Mackenzie. Abigail observed that her students' skills in 2D and 3D representation had improved, while Mackenzie explained that during the unit, her students, "were using their social skills they use in Math and building and creating, and I could see that they could transfer that into the design process".</p> <p>Teacher data suggests these Making units strongly focused on developing students' capabilities in Cultural Dimensions, such as Engagement, Collaboration and Communication, Creativity, Maker Efficacy and Attitudes/Dispositions, indicating a prevalence of interpersonal and intrapersonal disposition and skill development. There was less evidence of students developing capabilities in Operational and Critical Dimensions such as Technical Proficiency, Design Thinking, Problem Solving, Critical and Reflective Thinking and Science/Mathematics knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0147454447-9">Student Perspectives</hd> <p>Data aligned with ten student learning and skill development outcomes from student focus groups (see Table 5). Findings are arranged from highest to the lowest occurrence frequency, linked to Marsh et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref44">16</reflink>]) framework, and include participant quotes where relevant. Students recognized that they had increased in their ability to Problem Solve (20%, Critical Dimension) during the Making process. For example, Denise and Macie both explained their increased understanding of size and proportion when using the app, which emerged from having to ensure that they could move and connect objects:</p> <p>And this has to be the same size as – all of the things has [sic] to be the same size because if we don't move it, it's going to be like something like a blob. So we can move it properly. That's why we have to have it the same size. If it wasn't at the same size, we won't know what this is. (Denise)</p> <p>And also, if it's not the same size like this, because this one is so up, then when if you move it like this, this pick, this part over here will look a bit more thicker. Because if there'd be more thicker over here. (Macie)</p> <p>Design Thinking (18%, Operational Dimension) was demonstrated by Samantha who described the process of <emph>interpreting</emph> the size of 3D objects in the software, then using the printed objects to modify their outcomes, "the iPad is small, and the things are big, but when we press on them, they're little but when they come out they're big, but we can make them smaller". During the focus group interviews many students indicated that they would like to continue using 3D design and printing technologies in their future classes and lessons – suggesting they were highly Engaged (15%, Cultural Dimension). More than 80% of interviewed students experienced difficulties using the app (Technical Proficiency, 14%; Operational Dimension). For example, when designing her princess, Melanie complained that, "the crown might be cheeky and fly all over the place", whereas Sanita found it difficult to put glasses on her character, "because I am trying to put the wings and the glasses on, but I have a very easy idea for the wing, but not the glasses". Nicholas observed that during the creation of his character, "everything went messed up because when I was trying to draw the wings, it didn't [do] it right ... it just went down instead of going where my finger was going". Emmanuel stated, "it is difficult to put another block on top of others", while Aaron concluded, "when they [the components] stick together, they look funner and funner [sic], but if they don't stick together, that means it's not fun".</p> <p>Creativity (11%, Cultural Dimension), was noted by, for example, Polly and Charlotte, who saw Making as closely connected with their creativity. They commented that they would like to continue using the software and hardware, "because we like making molds and we like being creative". Collaboration and Communication (5%, Cultural Dimension), was evident in the way that students framed their responses as, "we made", when referring to other students in the focus groups and classroom. Other students referenced a more knowledgeable peer who helped them overcome a problem, such as when Lana showed Rabia how to combine shapes. Several students referenced Autonomy (5%, Cultural Dimension) in the focus group interviews, where it was described as "freedom, choice, and creative license". Aaron was proud that he could engineer his boat design to withstand waves, "all by myself". Melanie liked the 3D app, "because you can make anything", and noted that when she grows up, "I will just build anything that I want".</p> <p>Maker Efficacy (4%, Cultural Dimension) developed from students' views of themselves as "Makers". Melanie said that she was, "a great Maker", while Macie gave herself, "ten out of ten" for her abilities. Similarly, Lana and Rabia were both, "really good Makers", and Anthony and Ashley gave themselves, "nine out of ten". Jayde provided a reason for why she was, "a great Maker ... because every Sunday and Saturday, my brother always teaches me ... ". Nicholas conceded that he was, "not yet" a good Maker and required further time and commitment to improve. Randy rated his ability as, "five out of ten", while Cherie thought she was only, "a little bit good". Real World Links (4%, Critical Dimension) were made as students connected their Making to life experiences. Samantha decided to make a pool for her pet hermit crab that, "can climb on in ... drink and have a bath", and saw an opportunity to make houses in the future, "in case people don't have a house ... I'm going to rent lots of houses, so people can stay in them ... When everyone has a house, I can build my own house". Students used science and/or math conceptual knowledge (3%, Critical Dimension) to explain how they tested their prototypes. Aaron recognized the reasons for testing his boat in a bucket of water with a figurine, "because real boats float". Denise similarly identified the need to test her shadow puppet fox through motion and light so that it would work in the final performance, "the fox has to run from the mouse because it thinks the Gruffalo's going to eat it ... so, this fox saw the Gruffalo, that's why it's going to run like this [demonstrates]".</p> <p>Student data was similar to teacher data in that it suggested learning focussed on capabilities in the Cultural Dimensions of Engagement, Creativity, Attitudes/Dispositions, Collaboration and Communication, and Maker Efficacy. Analogous to teacher data, it also reflected similar developments in students' capabilities in the Operational and Critical Dimensions related to Technical Proficiency, Design Thinking, Problem Solving, Critical and Reflective Thinking and Science/Mathematics knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0147454447-10">Video Screen Data Capture: audio and video</hd> <p>Data aligned with five student learning and skill development outcomes from screen capture (see Table 5). Findings are arranged from highest to the lowest occurrence frequency and linked to Marsh et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref45">16</reflink>]) framework. First, Technical Proficiency (34%, Operational Dimension) was noted through student interactions with the 3D app, with the two most frequently coded actions being "object creation" and "object deletion". Student interactions with different app features were the focus of most lessons. Design Thinking (28%, Operational Dimension) was noted from screen recordings linked to the five phases of the IDEO model. For example, during the <emph>Discovery</emph> phase students interacted with different parts of 3D design app to find out how it worked; while during the <emph>Interpretation</emph> phase, students' questions and statements were about what was happening on-screen as designs developed. During the <emph>Ideation</emph> phase, student actions and dialogue related to interest in creating and ideating different aspects of the designs-in-progress, while <emph>Experimentation</emph> phase dialogue typically included students' describing how and why they were manipulating objects. During the <emph>Evolution</emph> phase, students saved and named objects in the application gallery. Examples of students using Problem Solving, Critical Thinking and Reflective Thinking (18%, Critical Dimension) were recorded through dialogue such as, "I need to work out how to turn around the wings" (I have a problem to solve); "You have to change the angle of the computer" (critical reflection about an aspect of the hardware); "I'm trying to make a boat" (reflection that the product doesn't match the intended outcome). Collaboration/communication (12%, Cultural Dimension) was noted in 332 occurrences, the majority of which (n = 233, 70.2%) were student-to-student and included a wide range of exchanges, such as, "What do you want? Tell me and I'll get it for you" (Mary); "Let's do a potato head" (Sue); "I will turn the crown like this ... " (Dan); "You're starting all over again?" (Mark); "I'm trying to do this, but it's not working!" (Melanie); "That doesn't look like a boat, actually" (Aaron).</p> <p>Screen capture data suggested that student learning was mainly focussed in the Operational Dimension related to Technical Proficiency and Design Thinking, followed by learning in the Cultural Dimension (Collaboration, Communication and Engagement) and Critical Dimension (Problem Solving, Critical and Reflective Thinking).</p> <hd id="AN0147454447-11">Discussion</hd> <p>The following discusses Findings responding to the research question: <emph>What is the nature of students' learning and learning processes in technology-enhanced Makerspaces</emph>? Applying Marsh et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref46">16</reflink>]) Maker Literacies Framework to understand data suggested that student learning and skill development was predominantly located in the Operational Dimension (51%), possibly indicating the need to master tools before applying them creatively to solve design problems. Remaining data were reasonably evenly distributed between Cultural Dimensions (27%) and Critical Dimensions (22%). Of note, however, is that screen capture data is at odds with teacher and student perspectives which indicated that student learning and skill development was focussed in the Cultural Dimension. A possible explanation for this difference could be related to the type of data captured through screen recordings, which was heavily focussed on student interactions with the 3D design app, resulting in a predominance of coded occurrences related to Technical Proficiency in the Operational Dimension.</p> <p>Regardless, findings clearly indicate that the 3D design app was highly engaging for students although challenging to use, and that conceptualizing, designing and producing solutions to problems and needs provided opportunities for students to interact collaboratively and creatively. However, gamification aspects of the app distracted students which, for some, negatively affected the quality of produced outcomes and their work processes. This suggests that teachers need to monitor closely how their students interact with such apps, and where possible, set preferences to manage which functions of the app students can access. Additionally, student learning and skill development outcomes signaled that for students to develop robust STEM conceptual knowledge, particularly science and mathematics concepts, teachers need to explicitly identify, plan for and focus their teaching in these areas. For example, in this study, teachers could have integrated explicit offline hands-on investigations associated with 2D and 3D shapes as well as direct teaching of relevant science concepts related to floating and boat design, to take full advantage of the conceptual learning opportunities inherent in the tasks.</p> <p>While possibly not particularly effective for STEM concept knowledge development, results do highlight the value of these Makerspaces units for building creativity (e.g., Sophie and Hannah's units on Shadow puppets and Bag tags respectively), critical thinking (e.g., Kirsten's unit on Playground Sculptures) and problem solving (e.g., Jane's unit on Designing keyrings), through tasks that students saw as relevant to the real world. Students were able to describe how they had met functional requirements of the design problem they had been given, and could apply problem solving strategies and a range of behaviors integral to elements of design thinking, as illustrated by Samantha's ability to apply her knowledge to future plans to design and produce 3D houses in which to live. Most students also benefited from the freedom to take greater responsibility for their own learning as they worked collaboratively on their projects. However, some students identified collaboration issues as negatively affecting their progress, and many found the 3D design app interface difficult to understand and operate. Regardless, almost all students viewed using the app positively, and indicated a desire for more 3D design and printing lessons in future. Many students wanted to use 3D design and printing once they left school – for instance, in future careers.</p> <p>These Makerspaces units provided students with multiple opportunities to develop their STEM procedural knowledge and technical skills, increasing their proficiency in using digital tools (Technology) and building understanding of basic Engineering design and production processes. However, as noted previously, there was limited evidence suggesting students recognized or understood the nature and relevance of Science and Mathematics conceptual knowledge being utilized in the tasks. While analysis revealed multiple opportunities for teachers to leverage activities in the units for specific teaching and learning of concepts, fully capitalizing on these required pre-identification and planning, and possibly research to support meaningful and accurate communication and translation to these young students. While acknowledging that STEM conceptual knowledge development was not a planned focus of these units, this finding does highlight the danger of assuming science or mathematics concepts will be learnt, simply by engaging in Making tasks. While a significant body of literature exists positioning Making as "natural" platforms for learning STEM conceptual knowledge (e.g., Henriksen, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref47">13</reflink>]; Niederhauser &amp; Schrum, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref48">17</reflink>]) this study suggests such conclusions should be viewed with caution. Teachers need to be mindful of how Making presents such opportunities, and actively plan them into lessons.</p> <p>Finally, Marsh et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref49">16</reflink>]) Maker Literacies Framework provided a useful lens from which to theorize the nature of students' learning in these Makerspaces. However, while its domains and dimensions provided valuable "signposts" to key learning and events in data, in this study we found that it was necessary to extend the domain definitions for two purposes. The first was to accommodate the more technically oriented "hard" skills students utilized when learning about and with the 3D technology, for example, by including a preliminary "Orientation" phase before the "Design" phase where students could develop their knowledge and skills with the 3D design app. The second was to evaluate more closely the nature of "soft" skills operationalized when working in groups on their tasks. This included the addition of a "Participation" phase where intrapersonal and interpersonal skills could be identified, monitored to aligned with future-focused competencies, such as those described in the OECD's ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref50">18</reflink>]) <emph>Future of Education and Skills 2030 project</emph>.</p> <p>Although the framework was conceptualized at a time before the advent of 3D design and printing technology, its dimensions were sufficiently flexible to enable the researchers to identify and understand the nature of students' learning and learning processes during the units, and to signal areas where there might be more focus in the future, to improve the potential "learning value" of technology-enhanced Makerspaces. For example, while the units were valuable learning experiences for these young students, they were heavily "weighted" toward cultural and operational components. A deeper experience for students would be to include a more holistic focus on young children's learning in Makerspaces and to actively seek out and plan to include more critical dimensions, particularly related to developing knowledge and understanding of how science and mathematics concepts enable the design and production of solutions.</p> <p>In summary, this study aimed to identify the nature of students' learning and learning processes in technology-enhanced Makerspaces and determined that students exercised a wide range of integrated and purposeful skills and developed understanding in digital technical proficiency, design thinking, problem solving, critical thinking, collaboration. and communication. Makerspaces provide potentially productive contexts for students to learn about STEM, but our research indicates that key STEM concepts need to be formally planned for, included, and explicitly unpacked by teachers to optimize student learning. In addition, we found that Marsh et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref51">16</reflink>]) Maker Literacies Framework was helpful when analyzing the nature of students' learning in these Makerspaces. We propose extensions to the framework for 3D contexts and advice to teachers to be mindful of creating a holistic suite of learning experiences across the Operational, Cultural and Critical Dimensions, when working with young learners.</p> <hd id="AN0147454447-12">Limitations and Conclusion</hd> <p>While multiple sources were used to collect data from a large number of classes and participants, there are some limitations to the generalizability of this study's findings. First, the screen recordings were unable to accurately or objectively capture the breadth and depth of students' creativity, critical thinking and problem solving. While they were useful for gauging technical proficiencies and understanding more about students' collaborative practices, their efficacy for building knowledge of more affective and cognitive outcomes was limited. Second, teacher reflective journals often provided a restricted "window" into their thoughts and reasons for decisions and actions, and some teachers also failed to complete their reflections close to when lessons were taught, possibly compromising the accuracy and currency of these data. Third, during the student focus groups some students struggled to answer some of the questions, requiring the use of follow-up questions that were re-worded and/or simplified. This suggests these young students may have struggled to identify or describe some aspects related to their learning in these units, simply because they were unable to grasp conceptually what they were being asked to comment on.</p> <p>In conclusion, the aim of this study was to build understanding of what young students learned while working in 3D Makerspaces using three different data sources, through applying Marsh et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref52">16</reflink>]) Maker Literacies Framework for data analysis. The framework was useful for this purpose and extending it to analyze the "what" and "how" of students' learning and learning processes allowed us to gain deeper insights into the affordances and barriers offered by technology-enhanced Makerspaces. Finally, while these technology-enhanced Makerspaces proved highly effective for exercising "soft" and technical skills such as collaboration, communication, problem solving and using different technologies, teachers need to be mindful of the need to explicitly plan for and teach important STEM concepts, if learning in these disciplines is a goal.</p> <hd id="AN0147454447-13">Disclosure Statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0147454447-14">Appendix A. Data collection strategies</hd> <hd1 id="AN0147454447-15">Teacher Focus Groups</hd1> <p>Two researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with four focus groups of approximately 6–8 teachers, on completion of their unit. During the interviews, researchers asked teachers to share their experiences of teaching in Makerspaces, to reflect on challenges and opportunities, and to identify areas for improvement and future strategies. The items below related specifically to students, and therefore their responses provide relevant insights responding to the research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <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> </ulist> <p>In total, twenty-five teachers participated in the focus group interviews, with two of these teachers participating via e-mail responses due to being unavailable at the time of the interview. Four interviews took place, ranging in length from approximately twenty-three minutes to thirty-three minutes, with an average length of approximately twenty-seven minutes. The twenty-five teachers participating included twelve Kindergarten teachers (48%), seven Year 1 teachers (28%), five Year 2 teachers (20%) and one non-teaching teacher (4%). Although the non-teaching participant in the focus group had not implemented or reflected on their teaching in makerspaces, they had been actively involved in visiting colleagues' classrooms, team teaching, and earlier, in the professional learning program. As such, her insights were considered to have value.</p> <hd1 id="AN0147454447-16">Teacher Survey Responses</hd1> <p>A post professional learning online questionnaire was accessed by participating teachers to establish their knowledge, experiences and beliefs about teaching in Makerspaces. The Items below related specifically to students and therefore these particular responses were relevant data for this study's research question:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What benefits did you find for your students from undertaking Maker activities? [and] What did they learn?</item> <p></p> <item> What issues did find when teaching in Makerspaces? [and] What do you think constrained student learning in Makerspaces?</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0147454447-17">Teacher Reflective Journals</hd1> <p>Weekly written reflections on their Makerspace lessons were recorded by teachers and privately shared with the research team. All teachers were asked to spend approximately 25 minutes each week documenting their 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 artifacts that related to the taught lessons, with lesson plans, resources, units of work, and work samples being offered as possible examples. Twelve questions were used to form a guidelines document that was shared with teachers during the professional learning program, and teachers were free to consider any of these questions when writing their reflections. The items below related specifically to students, with teachers' responses providing relevant insights responding to the research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How did the students respond (e.g., emotionally and behaviorally) 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> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0147454447-18">Student Focus Groups</hd1> <p>Two researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with focus groups of 2-3 students after the completion of the units of work. During these interviews, the researchers encouraged students to talk about their experiences with makerspaces, explain highlights and challenges, and discuss possible next steps in in their making. In total, fourteen interviews were carried out. Eight interviews occurred with pairs of students, with the remaining six interviews being conducted with groups of three students. Thirty-four students were interviewed in total, comprising 16 kindergarten students (47.1%), 12 Year 1 students (35.3%), and six Year 2 students (17.6%). Questions posed to students included:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Can you tell us about what you made? What problem did it solve? Why did you make it the way you did?</item> <p></p> <item> What did you learn from creating your product?</item> <p></p> <item> What did you enjoy most about making your product? Was there something you didn't enjoy?</item> <p></p> <item> What was most difficult about making your product?</item> <p></p> <item> Did you like using the 3D app? Why or why not?</item> <p></p> <item> What made the 3D app easy or difficult to use? Can you suggest any changes?</item> <p></p> <item> Do you think you like school more or less after the Maker activities? Is school more interesting/enjoyable with Maker activities? Why?</item> <p></p> <item> Would you like to do more activities like this in your future classes?</item> <p></p> <item> Would you say that you are a good "Maker"?</item> <p></p> <item> Would you like to be a Maker (engineer) when you grow up?</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0147454447-19">Student Computer Screen Capture</hd1> <p>iPad screen recordings were collected from a subset of students during the in-depth lesson observations. These were designed to track how children engaged with the 3D design software. From the larger sample of participating teachers and students, the research team purposively selected three classes for video screen recordings. Selection was based on three criteria: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref53">1</reflink>) the teacher's willingness to be involved; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref54">2</reflink>) the inclusion of one class from every year level involved (Kindergarten, Year 1 and Year 2); and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref55">3</reflink>) and the inclusion of teachers that the school executive thought would well represent the year group. Within each of these classes, these teachers randomly selected six students to use iPads provided by the research team with the video recording iPad application <emph>AirShou</emph> installed. This application runs in the background and, once activated, records all screen activity and audio from the microphone. Selected students' parents had provided consent, and these students were aware that their screen and voices were being recorded. Teachers instructed the selected students to work in pairs, where they usually shared an iPad and collaborated on one or more designs.</p> <ref id="AN0147454447-20"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Makers Empire is an Australian-based supplier of 3D printing and design technology. Makers Empire also provides teacher professional learning in using 3D technologies and was a co-funder of this study. For further information see: https://<ulink href="http://www.makersempire.com/">www.makersempire.com/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref35" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> K = Kindergarten, 1 = Year 1, 2 = Year 2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref6" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> From Marsh et al. ([16]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref28" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> From Marsh et al. ([16]).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0147454447-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Australian Education Council. (2015). National STEM school education strategy 2016–2026. Author. <ulink href="http://www.educationcouncil.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/National%20STEM%20School%20Education%20Strategy.pdf">http://www.educationcouncil.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/National%20STEM%20School%20Education%20Strategy.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baxter, P., &amp; Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13 (4), 544 – 559. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol13/iss4/2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and 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> <bibtext> Bower, M., Stevenson, M., Falloon, G., Forbes, A., &amp; Hatzigianni, M. (2018). Makerspaces in primary school settings – Advancing 21st century and STEM capabilities using 3D design and 3D printing. Macquarie University. https://primarymakers.com</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref14" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, B. A., Reveles, J. M., &amp; Kelly, G. J. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89 (1), 779 – 802. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20069</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref22" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Canessa, E., Fonda, C., Zennaro, M., &amp; Deadline, N. (Eds.). (2013). Low–cost 3D printing for science, education and sustainable development. ICTP—The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics. http://web.archive.org/web/20150407185109/<ulink href="http://sdu.ictp.it/3d/book/Low-cost%5f3D%5fprinting%5fscreen.pdf">http://sdu.ictp.it/3d/book/Low-cost%5f3D%5fprinting%5fscreen.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref2" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Caprile, M., Palmén, R., Sanz, P., &amp; Dente, G. (2015). Encouraging STEM studies in the labour market. [White paper 542.199]. European Parliament Directorate General for Internal Policies. https://<ulink href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/542199/IPOL%5fSTU(2015)542199%5fEN.pdf">www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/542199/IPOL%5fSTU(2015)542199%5fEN.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref30" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Fierst, K., Diefenthaler, A., &amp; Diefenthaler, G. (2011). Design thinking for educators. IDEO.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref7" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., &amp; Hall Giesinger, C. (2017). NMC/CoSN Horizon report: 2017 K-12 edition. The New Media Consortium.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25 (1), 99 – 125. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1167322</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, B. (1988). Subject-specific literacy and school learning: A focus on writing. Australian Journal of Education, 32 (2), 156 – 179. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494418803200203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heckman, J., &amp; Kautz, T. (2012). Hard evidence on soft skills. Labour Economics, 19 (4), 451 – 664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2012.05.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henriksen, D. (2017). Creating STEAM with design thinking: Beyond STEM and arts integration. The STEAM Journal, 3 (1), 1 – 11. https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.20170301.11</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Innovation Design Engineering Organization (IDEO). (2020). Design thinking for educators toolkit (2nd ed.). Author. https://designthinkingforeducators.com/toolkit/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., &amp; Kelly, R. (2013). STEM country comparisons: International comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Final report. Australian Council of Learned Academies. https://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30059041/tytler-stemcountry-2013.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, J., Arnseth, C., &amp; Kumpulainen, K. (2018). Maker literacies and maker citizenship in the MakEY (Makerspaces in the early years) project. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2 (50), 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti2030050</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niederhauser, D., &amp; Schrum, L. (2016). Enacting STEM education for digital age learners: The maker movement goes to school. In D. Sampson, J. Spector, D. Ifenthaler, &amp; P. Isaisa (Eds.), CELDA 2016 conference: Cognition and exploratory learning in the digital age (pp. 357 – 360). International Association for Development of the Information Society.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. Author. https://<ulink href="http://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf">www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ortega, V. (2017). Increasing STEM exposure in K-5 schools through makerspace use: A multi-site early success case study [ Doctoral dissertation ]. University of California. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5j3859cf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osborne, J., Simon, S., &amp; Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (9), 1049 – 1079. https://doi.org/10.1080%2F0950069032000032199</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., &amp; 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> Sefton-Green, J., Marsh, J., Erstad, O., &amp; Flewitt, R. (2016). Establishing a research agenda for the digital literacy practices of young children: A white paper for COST action IS1410. DigiLitEY. <ulink href="http://digilitey.eu">http://digilitey.eu</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tan, E., &amp; Barton, A. (2007). From peripheral to central, the story of Melanie's metamorphosis in an urban middle school science class. Science Education, 92 (4), 567 – 590. https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fsce.20253</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.K Department of Education. (2009). Report of the STEM review. Author. https://<ulink href="http://www.education-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/de/Report%20of%20the%20STEM%20Review%202009%5f1.PDF">www.education-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/de/Report%20of%20the%20STEM%20Review%202009%5f1.PDF</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S Department of Education. (2018). Charting a course for success: America's strategy for STEM education. United States Government. https://<ulink href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/STEM-Education-Strategic-Plan-2018.pdf">www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/STEM-Education-Strategic-Plan-2018.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vossoughi, S., &amp; Bevan, B. (2014). Making and tinkering: A review of the literature. National Research Council Committee on Out of School Time STEM, 1 – 55. <ulink href="http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse%5f089888.pdf">http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse%5f089888.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112 (1), 12 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00101.x</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Anne Forbes; Garry Falloon; Michael Stevenson; Maria Hatzigianni and Matt Bower</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref50"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1279148 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: An Analysis of the Nature of Young Students' STEM Learning in 3D Technology-Enhanced Makerspaces – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <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="%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="%22Hatzigianni%2C+Maria%22">Hatzigianni, Maria</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9378-2598">0000-0001-9378-2598</externalLink>)<br /><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>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Education+and+Development%22"><i>Early Education and Development</i></searchLink>. 2021 32(1):172-187. – 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: 16 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2021 – 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> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22STEM+Education%22">STEM Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Processes%22">Learning Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Shared+Resources+and+Services%22">Shared Resources and Services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Peripherals%22">Computer Peripherals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Handheld+Devices%22">Handheld Devices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Resilience+%28Psychology%29%22">Resilience (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/10409289.2020.1781325 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1040-9289 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Research Findings: This study was undertaken to investigate learning processes and outcomes from using 3D design and printing technologies with children aged 5-8 years, in three schools in a metropolitan city in Australia. Data were collected from five sources (teacher interviews, surveys, journals; student interviews; and iPad screen recordings) and analyzed to identify themes responding to the question: What is the nature of students' learning and learning processes in technology-enhanced Makerspaces? Findings report the perspectives of teachers and students, supplemented by screen recordings from the iPads. Students were found to have significant engagement in learning through involvement in these technology-enhanced Makerspaces, and to have developed skills and understanding in a number of areas including: digital technical proficiency, design thinking, problem solving, critical thinking, collaboration, and communication. Findings are conceptualized using a research-informed Maker Literacies Framework, to better understand the nature of students' learning and work processes while engaged in these environments. Practice or Policy: Findings imply that Makerspaces with 3D design and printing could be used to promote young children's STEM literacies although teachers need to be mindful of the need to explicitly plan for and teach important STEM concepts, if learning in these disciplines is a goal. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2021 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1279148 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1279148 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/10409289.2020.1781325 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 16 StartPage: 172 Subjects: – SubjectFull: STEM Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries Type: general – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students Type: general – SubjectFull: Learning Processes Type: general – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement Type: general – SubjectFull: Shared Resources and Services Type: general – SubjectFull: Computer Peripherals Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes Type: general – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes Type: general – SubjectFull: Handheld Devices Type: general – SubjectFull: Resilience (Psychology) Type: general – SubjectFull: Skill Development Type: general – SubjectFull: Australia Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: An Analysis of the Nature of Young Students' STEM Learning in 3D Technology-Enhanced Makerspaces Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Forbes, Anne – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Falloon, Garry – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Stevenson, Michael – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Hatzigianni, Maria – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Bower, Matt IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2021 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1040-9289 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 32 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Early Education and Development Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
