View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

STEM in the Making? Investigating STEM Learning in Junior School Makerspaces

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: STEM in the Making? Investigating STEM Learning in Junior School Makerspaces
Language: English
Authors: Falloon, Garry (ORCID 0000-0002-6369-8771), Forbes, Anne, Stevenson, Michael, Bower, Matt, Hatzigianni, Maria
Source: Research in Science Education. Apr 2022 52(2):511-537.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 27
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: STEM Education, Elementary School Students, Printing, Technology Uses in Education, Educational Technology, Instructional Effectiveness, Shared Resources and Services, Skill Development, Knowledge Level
DOI: 10.1007/s11165-020-09949-3
ISSN: 0157-244X
Abstract: Makerspaces are recent additions to schools and have been promoted as a means of developing STEM knowledge and skills. According to literature, the practical nature of making supports deeper engagement with STEM concepts and enhances development of STEM capabilities such as creativity, critical thinking, problem solving and collaboration. However, to date, limited empirical work has been completed investigating STEM learning in school makerspaces. This article reports outcomes from a study of 24 classroom makerspaces, where 5-8-year olds used 3D printing technology to design and develop artefacts responding to different problems, needs and opportunities. Findings were mixed, with evidence supporting makerspaces as effective for STEM skill and disposition development but more limited in their capacity to build STEM knowledge, unless this was explicitly identified and targeted by teachers. This paper questions assumptions about makerspaces as implicitly effective for STEM knowledge-building, arguing that teachers must specifically target conceptual outcomes in planning and teaching if makerspaces are to be effective for this purpose. Also, findings suggest the need to rethink how makerspaces contribute to holistic STEM literacy development, moving beyond current perspectives focused on learning "about" STEM, to one where makerspaces are viewed as "epistemic environments" beneficial to knowledge-building, "of" STEM. Findings will be of value to educators considering makerspaces as a component of STEM curriculum and infrastructure development.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1330232
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE-0TT7GLB_siam8-6EDtpjAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMIhmBoS6mdlqbthvAIBEICBmyxfvXTIOTvtiPAwQdIDOPW-kZMS-1h2U025E1By2EzK1FMDPv1rD1N5x3qBSbKJlKJH63583r7ctp8TZEZ974lJBcecP9aRQEtZTGQ57scGKwOHPkPbYHRwNvAdVK-MdqyNsAK8H0HaYDoJBOwq_N_FamNgKE8oAkfw7yfXsYhmfZS4Wef8cGU3FBFH9KG6gxJdQyVBYz2BRFR4
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0155872722;g7201apr.22;2022Mar23.06:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0155872722-1">STEM in the Making? Investigating STEM Learning in Junior School Makerspaces </title> <p>Makerspaces are recent additions to schools and have been promoted as a means of developing STEM knowledge and skills. According to literature, the practical nature of making supports deeper engagement with STEM concepts and enhances development of STEM capabilities such as creativity, critical thinking, problem solving and collaboration. However, to date, limited empirical work has been completed investigating STEM learning in school makerspaces. This article reports outcomes from a study of 24 classroom makerspaces, where 5–8-year olds used 3D printing technology to design and develop artefacts responding to different problems, needs and opportunities. Findings were mixed, with evidence supporting makerspaces as effective for STEM skill and disposition development but more limited in their capacity to build STEM knowledge, unless this was explicitly identified and targeted by teachers. This paper questions assumptions about makerspaces as implicitly effective for STEM knowledge-building, arguing that teachers must specifically target conceptual outcomes in planning and teaching if makerspaces are to be effective for this purpose. Also, findings suggest the need to rethink how makerspaces contribute to holistic STEM literacy development, moving beyond current perspectives focused on learning about STEM, to one where makerspaces are viewed as epistemic environments beneficial to knowledge-building, of STEM. Findings will be of value to educators considering makerspaces as a component of STEM curriculum and infrastructure development.</p> <p>Keywords: Makerspaces; STEM literacy; Interdisciplinary curriculum; STEM education; School; Science knowledge</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Paralleling calls for enhanced STEM capabilities has been the rise of the maker movement and the development of makerspaces in schools (Bower et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref1">10</reflink>]; Niederhauser and Schrum [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref2">27</reflink>]). According to Keune et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref3">22</reflink>]) "makerspaces are intentionally designed constructionist spaces located in a range of educational settings for youth to design and share projects using high and low tech materials" (p.369). Some authors identify makerspaces as venues for building STEM capabilities, citing benefits including learning contextualisation and relevance, conceptual engagement and developing STEM literacy skills (e.g. Henriksen [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref4">16</reflink>]; Niederhauser and Schrum [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref5">27</reflink>]). Others highlight value for drawing together STEM disciplines in practical, problem-focused experiences that move beyond isolated skills and knowledge, towards project-based models supporting knowledge and skill integration (e.g. Hira et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref6">17</reflink>]; Honey et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref7">19</reflink>]). While the relationship between STEM and making has been theorised, limited empirical work has been undertaken investigating this relationship. This article reports outcomes from a multi-class makerspaces study, evaluating the extent to which makerspaces units provided STEM learning opportunities for students. Data were gathered from 5- to 8-year olds and their teachers in 24 classrooms over a 6-week period, as they completed units involving 3D design and printing technology.</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-3">Significance</hd> <p>Improving students' STEM capabilities is a focus of education worldwide with the purpose of building a 'STEM literate' citizenry, capable of participating in decision-making about STEM issues and engaging in STEM careers and study (Office of the Chief Scientist [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref8">28</reflink>]). Research indicates the importance of school education in forming attitudes especially towards science, highlighting how early attitudes support later participation in science study, particularly as students transition to high school (Osborne et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref9">30</reflink>]). This study is important as it provides empirical evidence evaluating makerspaces in terms of their efficacy for developing STEM knowledge, skills and dispositions. Its outcomes will guide educators considering makerspaces as part of STEM curriculum and infrastructure.</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-4">Research Questions</hd> <p>Data were analysed responding to these questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What evidence exists indicating congruence between learning in these makerspaces and the attributes of STEM education?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent did the makerspaces curriculum and pedagogy support the development of STEM conceptual knowledge?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0155872722-5">Literature Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0155872722-6">STEM Literacy</hd> <p>The acronym STEM was coined in the early 2000s "as a generic label for any event, policy, program or practice that involves one or several of the STEM disciplines" (Bybee [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref10">8</reflink>], p.30). The concept of <emph>STEM literacy</emph> features in literature as a focus for STEM education (e.g. Bybee [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref11">9</reflink>]; Holmlund et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref12">18</reflink>]; Techakosit and Nilsook [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref13">36</reflink>]), and comprises four elements:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> STEM discipline knowledge: using STEM knowledge to identify issues, acquire new knowledge, and solve problems;</item> <p></p> <item> Understanding the characteristics of STEM endeavour: inquiry, design and evaluation;</item> <p></p> <item> Recognising how STEM disciplines shape our intellectual activity and social, material and cultural worlds;</item> <p></p> <item> Engaging with STEM issues and disciplines as a constructive and concerned citizen (Bybee [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref14">8</reflink>]).</item> </ulist> <p>This holistic view of the purpose of STEM education links personal cognitive, affective and dispositional outcomes, with broader societal, economic and environmental considerations.</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-7">STEM Curricula</hd> <p>Literature indicates that interdisciplinary curricula are more effective for delivering STEM literacy goals (e.g. Marshall and Harron [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref15">24</reflink>]; Sanders [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref16">32</reflink>]) but that historical divisions in how schools teach and assess, work against integrative approaches (Asghar et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref17">1</reflink>]; Roberts [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref18">31</reflink>]). While this is generally less applicable to primary schools, it can significantly influence secondary and high schools integrative efforts, through 'silo' effects brought about by the compartmentalisation of STEM disciplines aligned with separate departments or faculties (Asghar et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref19">1</reflink>]; Bybee [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref20">8</reflink>]; Gilbert [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref21">13</reflink>]). Interdisciplinary curricula emphasise the interrelationship between knowledge, skills and capabilities supported by pedagogies focused on authentic, collaborative, student-focused projects (Holmlund et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref22">18</reflink>]). Design thinking is a commonly used framework for guiding interdisciplinary STEM curricula (Henriksen [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref23">16</reflink>]; Johns and Mentzer [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>]) where <emph>ideation</emph> provides an 'entry point' to identifying project foci, and other design processes including conceptualising, planning, prototyping, producing, evaluating and revising serve as a framework guiding planning and teaching. Sanders ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref25">32</reflink>]) argues that interdisciplinary, design-based approaches are best supported by an "integrative STEM education pedagogy" (p.7), through which teachers adopt different roles at different times responding to the needs of projects and capabilities of students. While integrative pedagogy builds independent STEM capabilities, teachers need deep discipline knowledge and be willing to adopt different pedagogies at different times, including more instructive methods (Erdogan and Bozeman [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref26">11</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-8">STEM Capabilities, Skills and Dispositions</hd> <p>Capabilities, skills and dispositions feature as integral to STEM literacy, and as outcomes from, and contributors to, STEM curricula. They comprise cognitive elements of higher order and creative and critical thinking (Mohr-Schroeder et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref27">25</reflink>]); non-routine problem solving (Asghar et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref28">1</reflink>]); dispositions including risk taking, positive acceptance of failure and a growth mindset (Hsu et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref29">20</reflink>]); and capabilities such as independence, self-management and teamwork (Morrison et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref30">26</reflink>]). Literature associates development of STEM skills and capabilities with interdisciplinary project-based curricula, through which students collaboratively engage in solving or modelling solutions to authentic problems, needs or opportunities. In these, students learn and apply STEM knowledge and skills in situ<emph>,</emph> according to the demands of the project (Honey et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref31">19</reflink>]). Brears et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref32">7</reflink>]) suggest that project-based curricula provides a natural approach supporting the integration of STEM disciplines, mirroring 'real-world' processes used by scientists and industries when solving problems or developing innovations.</p> <p>STEM skills, dispositions and capabilities were promoted as an effective means of building competencies for future workplace readiness and maximising personal and professional opportunities (Techakosit and Nilsook [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref33">36</reflink>]). They were often associated with 'pipeline' perspectives, indicating the role of STEM education in producing employees with the capabilities to develop high value products and services of economic benefit (e.g. Office of the Chief Scientist [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref34">28</reflink>]). STEM capabilities were frequently aligned with <emph>soft</emph> or <emph>twenty-first Century skills</emph>, which Heckman and Kautz ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref35">15</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). STEM capabilities were positioned both as an outcome of STEM education (STEM literacy) and embedded in STEM curricula, informing the design, content and delivery of learning programs.</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-9">Makerspaces and STEM Education</hd> <p>Originating from the constructionist theoretical work of Seymour Papert, makerspaces have evolved in public venues such as libraries, museums and schools. The transition of makerspaces into schools has heightened interest in the contribution they can make to building STEM (and other) knowledge, skills and capabilities (Keune et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref36">22</reflink>]). However, according to Niederhauser and Schrum ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref37">27</reflink>]), challenges exist to 'raising the bar' of school making and STEM experiences, commenting that present "classroom-based learning experiences are not likely to promote the kinds of sophisticated problem-solving strategies necessary for addressing complex real-world problems" (p.358). Others have concerns about limitations of making for developing STEM knowledge, or even if interdisciplinary approaches are effective for STEM learning at all. Bevan comments that:...although much of the rhetoric about making emphasises STEM learning, there is not yet a deep literature demonstrating conceptual learning outcomes. STEM-rich making, like other forms of PBL and DBL, positions science concepts and STEM practices as the means, and not the ends... (p.92).</p> <p>Hira et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref38">17</reflink>]) identify challenges to making in schools from the current accountability emphasis on discipline-based standards, leading to "increasingly standardised classroom practices and scripted curriculum (and) innovative teaching methods being curtailed" (p.3). Stohlmann et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref39">35</reflink>]) highlight other issues including low teacher capability and poor resourcing, indicating that teachers in makerspaces must be well resourced and possess robust knowledge of STEM concepts, supported by appropriate pedagogical practices. Notwithstanding these challenges, literature signals strong links between interdisciplinary STEM and making, particularly the skills and capabilities utilised in projects, opportunities to develop and apply STEM knowledge and the application of design thinking principles. This study evaluates these links within the context of junior school makerspaces units, using 3D design and printing technology.</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-10">The Research Context</hd> <p>This study involved over 500 students and their teachers from 24 classes in three schools located in Australia. The students were all 5–8-year olds attending public schools ranging in size from 220 to 1200 students, located in mixed socio-economic communities. Their teachers had completed two professional development workshops and four weekly online training sessions held by an experienced former teacher, employed by a national supplier of 3D printers. The workshops involved making tasks compatible with the Australian Design and Technologies and Digital Technologies curriculum (ACARA [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>]), introduced the theoretical foundation and rationale for makerspaces and provided time for planning makerspaces learning units.</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-11">The Makerspaces Units</hd> <p>A variety of makerspaces units were planned and implemented. An illustrative summary of the units, their levels and general pedagogical approach is provided in Table 1. Several units involved multiple classes and teachers (e.g. 'Homes for Hermit Crabs'; 'Boat Designers') so they have not been listed separately. All teachers introduced the units via whole class teaching, but pedagogical approaches differed thereafter. Some teachers first allocated time to explore the 3D design and printing platform,[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref41">1</reflink>] while others researched to build knowledge of the problem or need. For example, the first two lessons in 'Homes for Hermit Crabs' involved researching crabs' survival needs using Attenborough's video series and Carle's 'A House for Hermit Crab' picture book. In contrast, the first lessons of 'Shape It' explored the 3D design app (how to create, resize, rotate and colour objects), while in 'Design a Character', the introduction covered how to log on and manage students' app accounts.</p> <p>Table 1 Illustrative summary of units with levels and pedagogical approach</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p>Unit title</p></th><th><p>Description</p></th><th><p>Level</p></th><th><p>Pedagogy</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Mr Spinny</p></td><td><p>Design a spinning toy to spin faster than an example made by the teacher</p></td><td><p>Year 2</p></td><td><p>Teacher demonstration of different design approaches. Used standard 'Toy Designer' app feature.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>The Headphone Problem</p></td><td><p>Design solution to a classroom problem of tangled headphone cables</p></td><td><p>Year 1</p></td><td><p>Groups conceptualised different solutions on paper. These were shared with the class and the viability of each was discussed.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Homes for Hermit Crabs</p></td><td><p>Designing tank accessories for hermit crab 'class pets' that were introduced to the classrooms</p></td><td><p>Kindergarten, Year 1 and Year 2</p></td><td><p>Significant prior teaching on hermit crab habitats (offline). Initial ideas drafted and viability evaluated (paper-based), prototyping, evaluating, revising designs.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Whose Keys are These?</p></td><td><p>Designing a personalised key ring for a teacher in the school</p></td><td><p>Year 2</p></td><td><p>Groups interviewed another teacher and designed a keyring to 'match' their personality. Initial 'mock ups' created from basic materials.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Time to Play</p></td><td><p>Design a toy using the 'Toy Designer' app feature</p></td><td><p>Kindergarten</p></td><td><p>Teacher shared a toy she had made, and discussed design features. Children explored 'Toy Designer' to create their own basic toy design.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Shape It</p></td><td><p>Create a basic 3D shape using the 'Shaper' app feature</p></td><td><p>Year 1</p></td><td><p>Following teacher instruction, children used templated 'Shaper' app feature to print a 3D shape of their choice.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Design a Character</p></td><td><p>Design and print a simple 3D 'character'</p></td><td><p>Kindergarten</p></td><td><p>Teacher shared a character she had made and children modelled from it.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Boat Designers</p></td><td><p>Design and print a boat that floats, using the 'Blocker' app feature</p></td><td><p>Kindergarten</p></td><td><p>Children explored 'Blocker' app feature, designed boat prototypes, presented and evaluated strengths and weaknesses of each.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Making Herb Garden Markers</p></td><td><p>Designing name markers for a herb garden</p></td><td><p>Year 2</p></td><td><p>Teacher used vendor-provided resource video to demonstrate to children how to design a herb garden marker peg. Children drafted designs offline before translating to app and printing.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Build it, Invent it and Make it</p></td><td><p>'Design stations' set up that children rotated around</p></td><td><p>Kindergarten</p></td><td><p>3D design one of several 'design stations' set up in classrooms. Other stations involved non digital materials. Uncoordinated, experience based activities.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Playground Sculptures</p></td><td><p>Designing models of suitable sculptures for the school playground</p></td><td><p>Year 2</p></td><td><p>Heavily scaffolded task. Mocking up sculptures using modelling clay then translating for 3D design and printing.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Road Safety Bag Tags</p></td><td><p>Designing safety tags to put on school bags to remind about road safety</p></td><td><p>Year 2</p></td><td><p>Children guided by teacher-prepared worksheet detailing steps to produce a bag tag, that children could customise by adding their own road rule and decoration.</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Polluting pebbles</p></td><td><p>Designing a solution to a problem of coloured pebbles polluting an outdoor wet makerspace.</p></td><td><p>Year 1</p></td><td><p>Groups discussed and drafted different solutions on paper, before mocking up, prototyping and producing models of variable viability.</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Generally, the more open the task the more time was spent on planning and research, as teachers scaffolded students' knowledge-building to produce outcomes compatible with success criteria. All units followed similar trajectories, to a greater or lesser extent aligned with IDEO's <emph>Design Thinking for Educators</emph> model introduced in the professional learning (Fierst et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref42">12</reflink>]). The IDEO model maps out five stages in 'the design process'—discovery (approaching the challenge), interpretation (understanding the challenge), ideation (conceptualising possible solutions), experimentation (creating possible solutions) and evolution (evaluating and evolving solutions). The model was introduced to teachers as a guide for planning and structuring their units, although in practice significant variation existed in how it was used. This, and its impact, will be discussed later.</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-12">Research Procedure and Data Methods</hd> <p>Observation data were collected by five researchers during once-a-week sessions of 1–1.5 h, over approximately 4–5 weeks. At least one observation was undertaken in each classroom. These were supplemented by a questionnaire, teacher and student focus groups, teacher reflective journals, an online blog, student-produced artefacts and document analysis (teacher planning). Data sources, descriptions, number of contributors and items analysed are summarised in Appendix A.</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-13">Coding and Analysis</hd> <p>A coding framework developed from literature was used to evaluate data under three emergent themes: STEM capabilities, skills and dispositions; STEM curriculum and pedagogy; and STEM literacy (Appendix B). Using inductive methods, these were further defined into primary codes (column 2) and code descriptors (column 3). Initial evaluation involved the first author and an assistant completing separate textual content analyses of a data sample using the primary codes. A randomly selected sample comprising 5 questionnaires (short response items), 4 blog transcripts, 5 observations, 4 student focus group transcripts, 1 teacher focus group transcript and 14 teacher reflective logs were selected for review, to identify keywords, excerpts, phrases and synonyms useful for determining occurrences in data aligned with the codes. Sample data were imported into QDA Miner and independently coded. As recommended by Gwet ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref43">14</reflink>]), rater-agreement calculations were performed on agreed-to occurrences only (<emph>n</emph> = 63), yielding a kappa of.627 (SE =.118; CI.395–.859). This rates as 'good' agreement strength according to Landis and Koch ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref44">23</reflink>]). Draft keywords were recorded in an Excel table. The assistant then coded the remaining data using the keywords as an initial guide. During coding, additional terms were added to the Excel table reflecting occurrences of a similar nature, which were not captured in analysis of the sample. Illustrative terms aligned with the primary codes are recorded in Appendix C (columns 3–6). Examples of data by source coded under each theme and code are presented in Appendix D. Of note is that no data were found that <emph>explicitly</emph> referred to STEM literacy development as an outcome from the units. This is possibly understandable given the concept of STEM literacy is still relatively new, and incorporating STEM conceptual outcomes was not a stated requirement of units. Also, STEM literacy is an <emph>outcome</emph> from STEM learning, not a discrete element, experience or strategy that can be <emph>programmed into</emph> STEM learning. Given the pragmatic nature of teachers' work, unless they had prior exposure to the concept, their awareness or knowledge of the term 'STEM literacy' may not have been well developed.</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-14">Findings</hd> <p>In total, 217 occurrences aligned with the primary codes were identified in data (Table 1). Data for 'STEM and other knowledge' was further defined by separation into disciplines, reflecting data that were both STEM and non-STEM discipline in nature (e.g. science, technology/ICT, literacy, language, art). Some excerpts contained multiple references that have been counted under separate codes. Examples of these are indicated by an asterisk in Appendix D (Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2 Occurrences by theme and primary code (STEM attribute)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p>Theme</p></th><th><p>Primary code (STEM attribute)</p></th><th><p>Detail (where apparent in data)</p></th><th><p>Occurrences (counts)</p></th><th><p>Percentage of coded occurrences (rounded)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>STEM capabilities, skills and dispositions</p></td><td><p>Higher order thinking</p><p>Critical thinking</p></td><td /><td><p>14</p></td><td><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>Original and creative thinking</p><p>Divergent thinking</p><p>Inventive thinking</p></td><td /><td><p>17</p></td><td><p>8</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>Independent decision making</p><p>Self-managing/autonomous</p><p>Self-monitoring/self-regulating</p></td><td /><td><p>17</p></td><td><p>8</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>Growth mindset</p><p>Risk taking</p><p>Suspending judgement</p><p>Showing flexibility</p><p>Ownership/empowerment</p><p>Concern for people and place</p></td><td /><td><p>21</p></td><td><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>STEM curriculum and pedagogy</p></td><td><p>Builds STEM (and other) knowledge</p></td><td><p>Science process knowledge</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><p>Science conceptual knowledge</p></td><td><p>6</p></td><td><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><p>Technology knowledge (ICT)</p></td><td><p>11</p></td><td><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><p>Engineering knowledge</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><p>Mathematics knowledge</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><p>Language and Literacy knowledge</p></td><td><p>29</p></td><td><p>13</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><p>Other knowledge (references to integration with other disciplines e.g. art)</p></td><td><p>3</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>Interdisciplinary</p><p>Problem-focused</p><p>Project-based</p><p>Authentic</p></td><td /><td><p>19</p></td><td><p>9</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>Student-centred</p><p>Modelling</p><p>Instructing</p><p>Facilitating</p><p>Partnerships</p><p>Expert teacher</p><p>Mentor</p></td><td /><td><p>14</p></td><td><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>Collaboration</p><p>Communication</p><p>Knowledge exchangeTeam work</p></td><td /><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>11</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>Design thinking principles</p></td><td /><td><p>32</p></td><td><p>15</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>Total</p></td><td /><td><p>217</p></td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0155872722-15">STEM Capabilities, Skills and Dispositions</hd> <p>Evidence of congruence between these makerspaces units and STEM learning as identified in literature is mixed. First, although not explicitly referred to by the teachers as such, data indicates the value of makerspaces for building capabilities, skills and dispositions at the core of STEM literacy. Principally, these data identified makerspaces as effective venues for thinking skill development (higher order, creative, critical, <emph>n</emph> = 31) and building personal dispositions such as independence, decision making, risk taking, self-organisation, a growth mindset and flexibility (<emph>n</emph> = 38). While mostly these outcomes were not deliberately planned, it was apparent teachers understood benefits for students' thinking, creativity, perseverance and resilience and were aware of how the 3D technology supported risk taking and experimentation (e.g. Appendix D, rows 7–10; row 26). Teachers also understood changes to teaching strategies were needed to optimise these outcomes for students. For some, this meant transitioning to methods allowing greater flexibility, enabling students to take more responsibility for their own choices and decisions (e.g. row 7; rows 20 and 21). This reflected in classrooms through strategies requiring students to explain and justify decisions, evaluate prototypes against criteria and provide and receive constructive feedback on ideas and progress, building higher order reflective and evaluative thinking (e.g. rows 2, 25 and 26).</p> <p>While data indicates that teachers clearly understood teaching approaches needed to evolve to support student autonomy and different ways of producing and representing outcomes, there was also evidence that this was not interpreted as <emph>less</emph> teacher engagement. Given the age of the students and their lack of conceptual knowledge, teachers effectively blended student and teacher-focused approaches to conceptualising problems and building the knowledge needed to successfully complete tasks (e.g. Appendix D, row 14). Key to the success of many units was the teachers' abilities to negotiate different roles at different times for different purposes - in particular, using inductive questioning skilfully to direct students' thinking towards viable strategies and solutions (e.g. row 18). Effective blending of pedagogies was integral to achieving both learning outcome and student capability goals.</p> <p>Second, teachers' initial exposure to IDEO's <emph>Design Thinking for Educators</emph> model was evident in how some units were planned and taught, and influential in opportunities for STEM skill development. The staged approach provided a logical structure for planning and teaching, although on the negative side, it was apparent some interpreted it more as a template than a guide (e.g. Appendix D, row 24; see later discussion). The freedom for students to interpret problems in different ways and design and produce responses of different types, varied considerably. Some units focused on an issue experienced by a particular group, such as 'teachers losing keys that needed a solution' (J, reflective journal) while others addressed real scenarios, including: 'Soon some hermit crabs will be coming to live in this tank as our class pets. The tank is empty. Hermit crabs are living things. What will the hermit crabs need to survive in the tank?' (Fig. 1). In the latter example, prior research was completed to better understand the problem, and students planned, presented and received feedback on initial ideas before developing prototypes (Fig. 2).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 An excerpt from a teacher's planning for 'Homes for Hermit Crabs'</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Students using butcher's paper to plan Hermit Crab tank accessories</p> <p>Conversely, the teacher-initiated 'key problem' resulted in students' thinking being guided towards a specific outcome, '...to create a personalised name tag for each teacher' (Appendix D, row 14)—with observations of subsequent lessons identifying a predominance of direct teaching to produce standardised tag designs. Fortunately, overly formulaic methods were not typical in most classrooms. Opportunities for knowledge exchange, discussion, teamwork, collaboration, student project ownership and peer teaching and mentoring, were generally encouraged and planned for (<emph>n</emph> = 24).</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-16">STEM Knowledge, Curriculum and Pedagogy</hd> <p>Data illustrated teachers' awareness of the relationship between curriculum and pedagogy in establishing makerspaces that effectively supported STEM capability and skill development (e.g. Appendix D, rows 14–23). Of note, however, is that when interdisciplinary knowledge data were disaggregated, over half the coded occurrences related to reading, writing or language development (literacy, <emph>n</emph> = 29) and art (<emph>n</emph> = 3). Teachers recognised the rich environments makerspaces presented for literacy development, specifically how they facilitated collaboration, knowledge exchange, giving and receiving feedback, explanation of outcomes against criteria, and peer and self-assessment (e.g. rows 2 and 3; 12; 20–22).</p> <p>By comparison, data indicating STEM knowledge development accounted for just 27 occurrences or 12%. Technology (ICT) knowledge (<emph>n</emph> = 11) featured mainly through using the 3D printers and app, and also for sharing ideas and recording stages of outcome development (e.g. Appendix D, rows 13 and 26). These data demonstrated ICT knowledge was integral to planning, design, production and sharing of progress and outcomes (learning <emph>with</emph> technology), rather than having a more technological focus (learning <emph>about</emph> technology). Limited data were found indicating the learning of science concepts (<emph>n</emph> = 6) or process knowledge (<emph>n</emph> = 5), and these were restricted to only three classrooms. In two classrooms, science conceptual and process knowledge outcomes were specified in planning and observed during teaching (e.g. Fig. 3). In both cases, science understandings established the foundation for later work and were consolidated before initial designs were drafted. For example, in 'Homes for Hermit Crabs' prerequisite science knowledge related to crabs' survival needs and established the foundational knowledge from which tank accessories were researched, planned, designed and produced. This was supplemented by direct teaching about the properties of materials being used to 3D print the prototypes and its fitness for purpose (e.g. durability, non-toxic etc.).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Planned science conceptual and process knowledge outcomes</p> <p>In 'Design a Boat for Teddy'<emph>,</emph> floating and sinking activities attempted to establish prerequisite conceptual knowledge from which tinfoil and playdoh boat prototypes were designed, tested, evaluated and modified, before 3D printing prototypes and final versions (e.g. Appendix D, rows 11 and 13). Physics concepts affecting floating included the weight of objects (in relation to their size), and the importance of shape (hollowness, surface area, upthrust). However, although teachers' deliberately planned and taught these concepts, there appeared limited translation of this knowledge into students' final designs, despite this being essential to a successful outcome (e.g. Appendix D, row 11). Although variably effective, these units illustrated the importance teachers' placed on understanding and emphasising science concepts, as fundamental to achieving makerspaces learning outcomes (e.g. Appendix D, rows 11 and 13). Finally, only five occurrences coded as mathematical knowledge were identified, and all related to using the 3D app for improving spatial awareness, mathematical language, geometry concepts or measurement skills (e.g. row 11). An example of this is included in Fig. 3.</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-17">Discussion</hd> <p>Much literature suggests makerspaces provide 'natural' environments for STEM learning (e.g. Barton et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref45">4</reflink>]; Hira et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref46">17</reflink>]; Niederhauser and Schrum [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref47">27</reflink>]). Therefore, given the number of units, teachers and classrooms from which data were collected, it could be considered surprising that more evidence was not found of this—especially relating to conceptual knowledge development. However, it needs to be remembered that teachers were not <emph>explicitly</emph> directed to target STEM concepts, although significant opportunities were present in most units for, at the very least, incidental STEM conceptual learning. While technology (ICT) knowledge development was identified through use of the 3D design app, evidence of learning opportunities recognised in mathematics and especially science was scarce, despite many units clearly lending themselves towards this (e.g. Shape It; Making Herb Garden Markers; Mr. Spinny; Polluting Pebbles). For example, all units involved working with and joining a range of materials with different properties, using and taking measurements and angles, investigating proportion and ratio, and exploring plain and geometric shapes and symmetry. Acknowledging other units 'embedded' in living and physical world contexts such as 'Homes for Hermit Crabs' and 'Boat Designers' displayed more planned and incidental STEM conceptual learning, although incidental learning was recognised in units in other areas (e.g. literacy and STEM skills), similar identification in the STEM disciplines appeared illusive for most.</p> <p>Notwithstanding these considerations, responding to the first research question (what evidence exists indicating congruence between learning in these makerspaces and the attributes of STEM education?), findings offer tentative support for literature perspectives. First, results confirm the potential of makerspaces for developing STEM capabilities, skills and dispositions (Gilbert [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref48">13</reflink>]; Keune et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref49">22</reflink>]). Most teachers understood and enacted pedagogies and curricula that allowed students freedom to work collaboratively and share ideas, as they explored different strategies, solutions and outcomes. This reflects findings by Ortega ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref50">29</reflink>]), who states that makerspaces' curricula and pedagogy must align with constructionist principles that underpin environments supporting exploration, experimentation, creative problem solving, collaboration and learning independence. These attributes align with interdisciplinary STEM literature which indicates they underpin STEM inquiries (e.g. Roberts [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref51">31</reflink>]; Zollman [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref52">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Design thinking is identified as a cornerstone of interdisciplinary STEM (Bybee [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref53">8</reflink>]; Johns and Mentzer [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref54">21</reflink>]) and has been associated with learning in makerspaces (Bevan [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref55">5</reflink>]). Johns and Mentzer ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref56">21</reflink>]) point to the relationship between scientific investigation and design thinking, commenting that "they are complementary modes of thinking that underlie decision-making processes across Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics fields" (p.17). Makerspaces literature also highlights the important contribution design thinking makes to research, ideation, production and evaluation of developed artefacts (Bevan [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref57">5</reflink>]; Marshall and Harron [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref58">24</reflink>]). In this study, design thinking in the form of IDEO's <emph>Design Thinking for Educators</emph>' model was an explicit component of the teachers' professional learning, and they were encouraged to use the approach when designing and teaching their units. While some teachers' interpretation of the IDEO model appeared to constrain some units (see below), overall the approach supported collaboration, cooperation, teamwork, peer mentoring, knowledge exchange and general communication—all important STEM literacy skills (Johns and Mentzer [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref59">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>While beneficial for providing structure, the procedural interpretation of the IDEO model appeared to have a constraining influence on unit design and pedagogy in some classrooms. Bevan ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref60">5</reflink>]) cautions that adopting prescribed models undermines the creative potential of makerspaces "which should be designed to allow for multiple starting points as well as pathways" (p.88). Literature also suggests 'real-world' design processes are seldom linear, and adherence to rigid procedures or predetermined pathways can diminish the creative intent and risk taking integral to original solution development (Braha and Reich [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref61">6</reflink>]). Given the age of the students and the fact that this was the first time teachers had used the technology, adopting a structured approach was possibly understandable. However, this finding does suggest that teachers need deeper knowledge of the theoretical foundations for effective learning in makerspaces—one that recognises the iterative, non-linear nature of design processes.</p> <p>The second research question sought evidence evaluating the effectiveness of the makerspaces units for developing STEM discipline knowledge. Literature identifies benefits from the practical nature of making, where the application of STEM knowledge is made more relevant, accessible, authentic and meaningful for students (Gilbert [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref62">13</reflink>]; Keune et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref63">22</reflink>]). However, data revealed the explicit targeting of STEM knowledge as intended learning occurred in only 3 of the 24 classrooms, highlighting dangers in assuming that students will develop this knowledge simply through working in makerspaces, as suggested in some literature. Notably, in classrooms where STEM knowledge outcomes were deliberately planned for, teachers recognised the potential makerspaces offered for contextualising STEM conceptual learning—and more importantly, understood its contribution to the successful development of outcomes and artefacts. To facilitate this, these teachers held sound personal understanding of STEM concepts, or committed to researching and developing these. This finding signals the influential nature of teacher knowledge to the type of learning possible in makerspaces, particularly if a principal goal is understanding STEM concepts. While these units illustrate the <emph>potential</emph> for engaging science inquiry processes and conceptual knowledge-building in makerspaces, there needs to be the focus and capacity to develop such understandings, before explicitly linking them to the design and production of outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-18">Reconceptualising Learning in Makerspaces</hd> <p>Makerspaces are becoming increasingly common in schools, and are often associated with enhanced STEM conceptual learning. However, these results indicate that automatically assuming this is the case is problematic. While some teachers were quick to identify and plan for such opportunities, when these makerspaces units are viewed through the lens of science, technology and mathematics <emph>knowledge learnt</emph>, it would be challenging to claim that most were effective. Acknowledging that these were not originally intended as STEM units—although clearly STEM concepts were essential for optimising learning from them, it is possibly understandable that the majority of teachers reverted to pursuing outcomes of a non-STEM or 'learning process' nature. What was surprising was that so few teachers <emph>recognised the potential and need for STEM knowledge integral to the making activities</emph>, if successful artefacts were to result. As Gilbert succinctly states:... bypassing the question of whether or not anything <emph>in particular</emph> should be learned (in makerspaces) is a strategic mistake. If the case for school makerspaces rests on the 'improved learning' claim, but is silent on what is to be learnt and/or how makerspaces contribute to intellectual development, then, in the current educational climate, the case is likely to fail... (Gilbert [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref64">13</reflink>], p.84)Reflecting on Gilbert's comment relating to <emph>what was learnt</emph> in these makerspaces—when viewed through a different lens—one that recognises the dynamic nature of knowledge <emph>of</emph> as opposed to knowledge <emph>about</emph> something (Scardamalia and Bereiter [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref65">33</reflink>]), more defensible arguments might be made for their inclusion in curricula. Considering the original constructionist foundations of makerspaces, it could be argued that their value lies not only in learning knowledge <emph>about</emph> science, technology, engineering or mathematics, but learning knowledge <emph>of</emph> how STEM concepts and principles contribute to solving problems and developing innovations. Scardamalia and Bereiter ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref66">33</reflink>]) comment that "knowledge <emph>of</emph> is activated when a need for it is encountered in action. Whereas knowledge <emph>about</emph> is approximately equal to declarative knowledge; knowledge <emph>of</emph> is a much richer concept" (p.105). Drawing on Sterelny's ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref67">34</reflink>]) notion of epistemic artefacts or "tools for thinking" (p.4), makerspaces could justifiably be considered <emph>epistemic environments</emph> fostering knowledge-building, or as Scardamalia and Bereiter ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref68">33</reflink>]) describe "tools that serve the further advancement of knowledge" (p.100). In such environments "student-generated theories and models are to be judged not so much by their conformity to accepted knowledge, as by their value as tools enabling further growth" (ibid, p.101). Moreover, the role of dialogue in knowledge-building has been well documented (e.g. von Krogh et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref69">37</reflink>]). Arguably, the collaborative nature of makerspaces activity and its associated dialogic affordances create environments supportive of what Gilbert ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref70">13</reflink>]) calls, <emph>Knowledge-in-Development</emph>. That is, they provide ideal venues for exercising the processes through which knowledge is created over time, through "experimentation, collaboration, argumentation, negotiation and debate between people, as they construct knowledge (with each other)..." (Gilbert [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref71">13</reflink>], p.88).</p> <p>Broadening our view of the benefits of makerspaces beyond only STEM knowledge <emph>acquisition</emph> towards recognising their value as epistemic environments within which STEM <emph>knowledge-building</emph> is supported, will enhance understandings of their real contribution to school education. However, makerspaces and interdisciplinary STEM share similar challenges in this respect. These include increased emphasis on standardised tests leading to scripted curriculum (Au [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref72">2</reflink>]), resourcing and teacher preparation (Hira et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref73">17</reflink>]), the 'siloed' nature of school organisation and preoccupation with content mastery (Asghar et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref74">1</reflink>]) and poor teacher conceptual knowledge, capability and efficacy (Wieman [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref75">38</reflink>]). Makerspaces and interdisciplinary STEM are disruptive innovations, and while holding much promise for building the sort of capabilities students need to prosper in increasingly complex environments, represent a challenging and disruptive departure from existing school curriculum and assessment methods.</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-19">Limitations</hd> <p>Although substantial data were gathered and analysed, it is acknowledged that the methods used only allowed a 'point in time' assessment to be made. It was possible that data were missed that may have indicated, for example, a greater emphasis on deliberate targeting of STEM knowledge. Second, the influence of the company-supplied professional learning teachers received prior to the research, was significant. The 'templating' of the IDEO model by some teachers may have constrained STEM learning opportunities existing beyond the confines of the model. Third, the study was conducted in 3D printing-equipped makerspaces, meaning that generalisability of results from this study to other contexts—such as makerspaces with no such equipment, may be limited. Finally, as with all interpretive studies, data coding was inherently subjective. While rater-agreement indicated robust judgements, possibility still remains for alternative interpretations.</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-20">Conclusion</hd> <p>Calls supporting makerspaces as effective environments for developing STEM capabilities are growing. In the context of early years education, outcomes from this study provide tacit support for these perspectives. However, moderating this are cautions about the innate value of makerspaces for learning <emph>about</emph> STEM knowledge. Given that "in the school world, knowledge <emph>about</emph> is the basic indicator of academic achievement" (Scardamalia & Bereiter, p.114), these results are consistent with Bevan's ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref76">5</reflink>]) earlier warning that makerspaces need to be carefully planned and implemented if they are to add explicit value to STEM conceptual learning. However, viewing makerspaces as <emph>epistemic environments</emph> where students build knowledge <emph>of</emph> STEM and how STEM contributes to solving problems, makes the case for makerspaces in schools more defensible. It is also important to recognise the value of makerspaces for generating interest and enthusiasm towards STEM in students of this age, which could potentially yield significant later benefits.</p> <p>Nonetheless, teachers should be mindful that learning <emph>of</emph> STEM is not the same as learning <emph>about</emph> STEM. That is, assumptions should not be made that just because students are motivated and engaged in makerspaces, that they are learning STEM concepts. Indeed, in current educational environments focused on content mastery and driven by standardised testing and curriculum compliance, under that assumption, makerspaces may not measure up favourably. Regardless, both makerspaces and interdisciplinary STEM hold much promise for building the type of skills, capabilities and competencies young people need to thrive in increasingly complex environments. As the history of disruptive educational innovation has shown, the question is not so much about the educational merit of makerspaces, but the ability of teachers and education systems to recognise the value they offer.</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-21">Funding Information</hd> <p>This study was funded in part by an AusIndustry Innovation Connections Grant, the NSW Department of Education, and Makers Empire Pty Ltd.</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-22">Compliance with Ethical Standards</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0155872722-23">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-24">Ethics</hd> <p>Ethical clearance for this study was granted by the author's university HREC.</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-25">Informed Consent</hd> <p>Informed consent was secured from all participants in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-26">Appendix A Data sources, descriptions, contributors and items analysed.</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p><bold>Source</bold></p></th><th><p><bold>Description</bold></p></th><th><p><bold>Number of teacher contributors</bold></p></th><th><p><bold>Items analysed</bold></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Questionnaire</p></td><td><p>Post intervention likert/short response questionnaire. This explored teachers' makerspaces teaching confidence levels, understanding of teaching and learning in makerspaces (pedagogy), views on student learning outcomes, and factors affecting the delivery of their makerspaces unit.</p></td><td><p>21 teachers</p></td><td><p>Short response questions</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Edmodo blog</p></td><td><p>A blog was established using Edmodo, that was facilitated by the workshop leader. Teachers could seek advice, ask questions and share ideas with the workshop leader, and other teachers.</p></td><td><p>13 teachers</p></td><td><p>Teacher posts (brief statements)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Artefacts and designs</p></td><td><p>The 3D-printed artefacts students produced during the units. Students' portfolios (records of the evolution of their designs recorded by the 3D app) were accessed.</p></td><td><p>15 students</p></td><td><p>Student work samples; access to design portfolios</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Lesson observations</p></td><td><p>Research team members completed lesson observations in classrooms, using a standard schedule focusing on student learning, engagement and learning task design.</p></td><td><p>24</p></td><td><p>Observation schedules</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Student focus groups</p></td><td><p>Small group interviews (2–3 students) focusing on outcomes, behaviours, challenges and views on Making.</p></td><td><p>34 students</p></td><td><p>Transcripts (recorded audio: 8–22 minutes each)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Teacher focus groups</p></td><td><p>Group interviews (3–8 teachers) focusing on outcomes, pedagogy, challenges/opportunities, changes to practice.</p></td><td><p>23 teachers</p></td><td><p>Transcripts (recorded audio: 22–32 minutes each)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Teacher lesson reflections</p></td><td><p>Personal reflective logs structured around learning design, pedagogy/teaching strategies, challenges and issues, positive outcomes, future intentions.</p></td><td><p>22 teachers</p></td><td><p>Brief reflective statements</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Work samples</p></td><td><p>Planning, timetables, presentations, unit resources, other.</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>Teacher-prepared materials</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0155872722-27">Appendix B Themes, primary codes and descriptors by author.</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p><bold>Emergent theme</bold></p></th><th><p><bold>Primary code (STEM attribute)</bold></p></th><th><p><bold>Descriptor</bold></p></th><th><p><bold>Authors</bold></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4"><p><bold>STEM capabilities, skills and dispositions</bold></p></td><td><p>Higher order thinking</p><p>Critical thinking</p></td><td><p>Develops higher order cognitive processes: analysis, synthesis, evaluation, creation</p><p>Motivates complex thinking</p></td><td><p>Brears et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2011</xref>)</p><p>Henriksen (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2017</xref>)</p><p>Morrison et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2015</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Original and creative thinking</p><p>Divergent thinking</p><p>Inventive thinking</p><p>(offering alternative explanations)</p></td><td><p>Provides opportunities to exercise and encourages diverse, non-conventional and imaginative thinking</p></td><td><p>Madden, Baxter, Beauchamp, Bouchard, Habermas, Ladd, Pearon & Plague (2013)</p><p>Honey et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">2014</xref>)</p><p>Roberts (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31">2012</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Independent decision making</p><p>Self-managing/autonomous</p><p>Self-monitoring/self-regulating</p></td><td><p>Builds confidence and independence</p><p>Supports personal organisation and self-management</p><p>Develops personal reflection and evaluation</p><p>Encourages informed participation and engagement</p></td><td><p>Bybee (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2010</xref>)</p><p>Madden et al. (2013)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Growth mindset</p><p>Risk taking</p><p>Suspending judgement</p><p>Showing flexibility</p><p>Ownership/empowerment</p><p>Concern for people and place</p></td><td><p>Fosters positive attitudes towards new ideas and informed risk taking</p><p>Accepts mistakes and promotes learning from failure</p><p>Encourages personal identification with, and ownership of projects</p><p>Promotes conclusions as tentative and subject to change</p><p>Encourages consideration of the impact of innovation on people, resources and environment</p></td><td><p>Bevan (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2017</xref>)</p><p>Madden et al. (2013)</p><p>Honey et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">2014</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><bold>STEM curriculum and pedagogy</bold></p></td><td><p>Builds STEM (and other) knowledge</p><p>Interdisciplinary</p><p>Problem-focused</p><p>Project-based</p><p>Authentic</p></td><td><p>Supports learning in the STEM (and other) subjects</p><p>Integrates multiple knowledges and skills</p><p>Is problem, need or opportunity based</p><p>Promotes co-constructed curriculum</p><p>Uses 'real world' scenarios as contexts for learning</p><p>Has a real purpose and audience/s</p></td><td><p>Asghar et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2012</xref>)</p><p>Madden et al. (2013)</p><p>Honey et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">2014</xref>)</p><p>Sanders (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32">2012</xref>)</p><p>Vongkulluksn, Matewos, Sinatra & Marsh (2018)</p><p>Hira et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2014</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>Student-centred</p><p>Modelling</p><p>Instructing</p><p>Facilitating</p><p>Partnerships</p><p>Expert teacher</p><p>Mentor</p></td><td><p>Student-focused learning approaches</p><p>Builds student agency and responsibility for learning</p><p>Encourages collaboration, communication and interaction</p><p>Teachers as content knowledge experts</p><p>Active teacher engagement, monitoring and instruction</p><p>Teachers as advisors, guides, mentors and coaches</p><p>Employs open, divergent and probing questioning</p><p>Teachers as designers of appropriate and supportive learning environments</p><p>Fosters development of research and inquiry skills and dispositions</p><p>Fosters development of partnerships (internal and external)</p></td><td><p>Madden et al. (2013)</p><p>Bevan (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2017</xref>)</p><p>Land (2013)</p><p>Quinn & Bell (2013)</p><p>Marshall and Harron (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2018</xref>)</p><p>Capraro & Jones (2013)</p></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" /><td><p>Collaboration</p><p>Communication</p><p>Knowledge exchange</p><p>Teamwork</p></td><td><p>Develops and strengthens teamwork</p><p>Supports knowledge sharing and exchange</p><p>Builds and utilises knowledge networks</p><p>Provides opportunities for sharing and promoting outcomes to stakeholders</p><p>Encourages inter and intra-group talk</p></td><td><p>Bybee (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2010</xref>)</p><p>Morrison et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2015</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Design thinking principles</p></td><td><p>Design thinking principles applied in the development of project outcomes</p></td><td><p>Henriksen (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2017</xref>)</p><p>Hong, Lin & Chen (2019)</p><p>Johns & Mentzer (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2016</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><bold>STEM literacy</bold></p></td><td><p>Knowledge, skills, capabilities, dispositions and ethical elements supporting an individual's productive engagement with STEM issues and practices, and enabling further learning in STEM</p></td><td><p>Develops STEM literacy. A 'STEM literate' individual:</p><p>• can develop STEM discipline knowledge and use that knowledge to identify issues, acquire new knowledge, and solve problems;</p><p>• understands the characteristics of STEM endeavour, including inquiry, design and evaluation;</p><p>• recognises how STEM disciplines shape our intellectual activity and social, material and cultural worlds;</p><p>• engages with STEM-related issues and disciplines as a constructive and concerned citizen.</p><p>(from Bybee <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2010</xref>)</p></td><td><p>Bybee (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2010</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2013</xref>)</p><p>Mohr-Schroeder et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr25">2015</xref>)</p><p>National Science Board (2015)</p><p>National Science Foundation (1996)</p><p>Office of the Chief Scientist (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr28">2016</xref>)</p><p>Zeidler (2016)</p><p>Holmlund et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2018</xref>)</p><p>Techakosit and Nilsook (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2018</xref>)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0155872722-28">Appendix C Sample excerpts, keywords and phrases used in coding.</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p>Theme</p></th><th><p>Primary code (STEM attribute)</p></th><th colspan="4"><p>Excerpts, keywords, phrases and synonyms used in coding</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4"><p>STEM capabilities, skills and dispositions</p></td><td><p>Higher order thinking</p><p>Critical thinking</p></td><td><p>Critical thinking</p><p>Reflect(ing)</p><p>Make design (more) effective/practical/ functional</p></td><td><p>Problem solving</p><p>Review(ing)</p><p>Analyse(ing)</p><p>Appraise(ing)</p><p>Justify</p></td><td><p>Explain(ing)</p><p>Verbalise reasoning</p><p>Refining</p><p>Thinking how to improve</p></td><td><p>Evaluate(ing) (against success criteria)</p><p>Make (constructive) feedback</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Original and creative thinking</p><p>Divergent thinking</p><p>Inventive thinking</p><p>(offering alternative explanations)</p></td><td><p>Think differently</p><p>Invent(ing)</p><p>Innovative(ion)</p><p>Solve problems in a new way</p></td><td><p>New</p><p>Divergent/different (ways & thinking)</p><p>Imaginative(ion)</p></td><td><p>Original</p><p>Alternative (ways)</p><p>Unique</p><p>'Outside the square'</p></td><td><p>Creative</p><p>(ideas/thoughts)</p><p>Verbalise reasons</p><p>Explain (why)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Independent decision making</p><p>Self-managing/autonomous</p><p>Self-monitoring/self-regulating</p></td><td><p>'I can do it (on my own...)'</p><p>Managing self</p><p>Self-direction</p><p>Guide their own design</p><p>'Sort it out' themselves</p></td><td><p>Independence</p><p>Autonomy(ous)</p><p>Planning/self-organisation (student)</p><p>Prioritise(ation)</p><p>Choice</p></td><td><p>Independent</p><p>Students can do it/driven by students Contribute(ion)</p><p>'Plan of Action'</p><p>'Driven by them'</p></td><td><p>Confident</p><p>Teacher guides/'takes a step back'</p><p>Participate(ion)</p><p>Self-determining(ation)</p><p>By themselves</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Growth mindset</p><p>Risk taking</p><p>Suspending judgement</p><p>Showing flexibility</p><p>Ownership/empowerment</p><p>Consideration of people and place</p></td><td><p>Resilient(ce)</p><p>Failure as a 'stepping-stone'</p><p>Celebrate problems</p><p>Pride</p><p>Explore(ation)</p><p>'Give it a go'</p></td><td><p>Persevere(ance)</p><p>(Make) mistakes</p><p>Not (upset, scared, worried) if it didn't work</p><p>Investigate(ion)</p><p>Didn't give up</p></td><td><p>(Keep) trying</p><p>'We can have a go'</p><p>(Learn from) mistakes</p><p>Make mistakes (and learn from them)</p><p>'Stick at it'</p><p>Endurance</p></td><td><p>(Take) risks</p><p>'We can do it'</p><p>Achievement</p><p>Effect(s) (of decisions)</p><p>Valued</p><p>'Try new ways'</p></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4"><p>STEM curriculum and pedagogy</p></td><td><p>Builds STEM (and other) knowledge</p><p>Interdisciplinary</p><p>Problem-focused</p><p>Project-based</p><p>Authentic</p></td><td><p>Learning designed to solve problem(s)</p><p>Context(ual)</p><p>Holistic (one topic with many 'parts')</p><p>Project</p><p>Learning as a whole</p><p>Thematic</p></td><td><p>Real life</p><p>Real world</p><p>Authentic</p><p>Task(s) oriented</p><p>Relevant (to the 'real world')</p><p>Drawing together (subjects)</p></td><td><p>Purpose(ful)</p><p>Open-ended</p><p>Need-based (driven)</p><p>Ongoing/continue(ity)</p><p>Learning content (subject) knowledge)</p><p>Provide (direct) knowledge Content knowledge</p></td><td><p>Genuine</p><p>Solution finding</p><p>Integrated</p><p>Recognise (use) existing knowledge</p><p>Teach (knowledge)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Student-centred</p><p>Modelling</p><p>Facilitating</p><p>Partnerships</p><p>Mentor</p></td><td><p>New approach to teaching</p><p>Relaxed environment</p><p>Co-constructed</p><p>Student responsibility Students as teachers</p><p>Mentoring</p></td><td><p>Child-directed/centred</p><p>Teacher 'hands it over'</p><p>Guide/support</p><p>Scaffold(ing) Flexible(ity)</p><p>Model(ling)</p></td><td><p>Student freedom/choice 'Sets students up for success'</p><p>Constructivist methods</p><p>'Step back'</p><p>Demonstration</p></td><td><p>Independent learning</p><p>Facilitates(or)</p><p>Open questioner/ prompter</p><p>Demonstrate(ing)</p><p>Peer mentoring</p><p>(Invite/share) parents (caregivers)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Collaboration</p><p>Communication</p><p>Knowledge exchange</p><p>Teamwork</p></td><td><p>Help(ing) (from teacher, peers, parents or sibling)</p><p>Collegiality</p><p>Dialogue</p><p>Giving and receiving feedback</p><p>Discussing</p></td><td><p>Learning from (or helping) each other</p><p>Teams/groups</p><p>Collaborating(ion)</p><p>Negotiation(ing)</p><p>Agreeing (agreement)</p><p>Working out (who does what)</p></td><td><p>Working together</p><p>Working off each other</p><p>Teamwork</p><p>Share(ing) ideas</p><p>'On the journey together'</p><p>Networking</p></td><td><p>'Pull(ing) together'</p><p>Brainstorming as group</p><p>Present(ing)</p><p>Cooperating</p><p>Showcasing</p><p>Organising</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Design thinking principles</p></td><td><p>Improve(ment)</p><p>Design thinking/'process'</p><p>Constructivist approach</p><p>Design cycle</p><p>Create(ing) product (etc.)</p></td><td><p>Redesign</p><p>Success criteria</p><p>Adapt(ing)</p><p>Modify(ing)</p><p>Revise(ing)</p></td><td><p>Refine original (initial) design</p><p>Change(ing)</p><p>Hands-on</p><p>Change(ing)</p></td><td><p>(re)Develop(ing)</p><p>Test(ing)</p><p>Adjust(ing)</p><p>Alter(ing)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0155872722-29">Appendix D Examples of data aligned with themes, primary codes and sources.</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th><p><bold>Row</bold></p></th><th><p><bold>Theme</bold></p></th><th><p><bold>Primary code (STEM attributes)</bold></p></th><th><p><bold>Data source</bold></p></th><th><p><bold>Sample data</bold></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>1</p></td><td><p><bold>STEM capabilities, skills and dispositions</bold></p></td><td><p>Higher order thinking</p><p>Critical thinking</p></td><td><p>Lesson observation</p><p>(field notes)</p></td><td><p><italic>He talks to his design (a student) =</italic> <bold><italic>internal thinking processes</italic></bold><italic>. He even makes movements with his hands in the air before actually putting his fingers on the iPad. It looks like he is</italic><bold><italic>thinking and trying out his design</italic></bold><italic>before using the app.</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2</p></td><td /><td /><td><p>Teacher focus group</p></td><td><p><italic>Providing that constructive feedback for each other and</italic><bold><italic>actually having to explain</italic></bold><italic>why they had changed their designs. So, I think it really, I guess... call it</italic><bold><italic>critical thinking</italic></bold><italic>.</italic></p><p><italic>Learning how to</italic><bold><italic>verbalise their reasons</italic></bold><italic>for making these changes.</italic></p><p><italic>...whereas now, as Katie said,</italic><bold><italic>the feedback that they are giving their peers</italic></bold><italic>on what worked, what did not work.</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>3</p></td><td /><td /><td><p>Reflective journal</p></td><td><p><italic>Students learning to</italic><bold><italic>verbalise reasoning</italic></bold><italic>, considering how to modify designs to be practical and effective.</italic></p><p><italic>High levels of collaboration, risk taking and refinement of designs. Students were also presented with the challenge of presenting</italic><bold><italic>critical feedback</italic></bold><italic>in a positive manner</italic><bold><italic>-</italic></bold><italic>promoting the development of</italic><bold><italic>reflective students.</italic></bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>4</p></td><td /><td><p>Original and creative thinking</p><p>Solving problems</p><p>Divergent thinking</p><p>Inventive thinking</p><p>(offering alternative explanations)</p></td><td><p>Post survey</p></td><td><p><italic>The importance of letting students</italic><bold><italic>guide their own design and creativity</italic></bold><italic>to problems.</italic></p><p><italic>Looking at</italic><bold><italic>solving problems a new way</italic></bold><italic>.</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>5</p></td><td /><td /><td><p>Reflective journal</p></td><td><p><italic>... and I've got one boy in particular who struggles with writing, struggles with reading, cannot communicate well with others. He′s just one of those little children. And it gave him an opportunity to</italic><bold><italic>think differently</italic></bold><italic>, and to kind of thrive in a different kind of environment.</italic></p><p><italic>Students were engaged in critical and</italic><bold><italic>creative thinking</italic></bold><italic>as they applied what they already knew about hermit crabs from last week, with what they researched this week to design the tank.</italic></p><p><italic>...well, look at you go. Just being able to thrive</italic><bold><italic>with a different way of thinking</italic></bold><italic>that he'd struggle with otherwise.</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>6</p></td><td /><td /><td><p>Student focus group</p><p>Student artefact evaluation</p></td><td><p><italic>We made a cubby house. Inside we made some kitchen so we can cook inside. And also on the second floor, we have three floors, the second floor we have a pool. And a bedroom so we can relax in the bedroom and go to sleep...and we have extra swimming clothes... and on the third level we have a garden so people can plant food and we have a soccer area.</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><bold>7</bold></p></td><td /><td><p>Independent decision making</p><p>Self-managing/autonomous</p><p>Self-monitoring/self-regulating</p></td><td><p>Teacher focus group</p></td><td><p><italic>It was incredible to see</italic><bold><italic>what they could figure out themselves... just by playing around with the app</italic></bold><italic>and then share with their peers,</italic><bold><italic>rather than me keeping them all together</italic></bold><italic>, and going to go through it one step at a time.</italic></p><p><italic>I found</italic><bold><italic>I stepped back a lot more than I would normally</italic></bold><italic>, that I was a lot freer...</italic><bold><italic>they were more independent</italic></bold><italic>.</italic></p><p><italic>Yes, I found something that really amazed me was</italic><bold><italic>their ability to refine their designs by themselves.</italic></bold><italic>With things earlier in the year, it was:</italic><bold><italic>My work's finished, we are done!</italic></bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>8</p></td><td /><td><p>Growth mindset</p><p>Risk taking</p><p>Suspending judgement</p><p>Showing flexibility</p><p>Ownership/empowerment</p><p>Concern for people and place</p></td><td><p>Reflective journal</p></td><td><p><italic>Students taking</italic><bold><italic>more risks</italic></bold><italic>,</italic><bold><italic>having a go</italic></bold><italic>with the app</italic><bold><italic>and beginning to identify some problems</italic></bold><italic>along the way that they may need to solve.</italic></p><p><italic>Encouraged</italic><bold><italic>collaboration</italic></bold><italic>and</italic><bold><italic>risk-taking...</italic></bold><italic>...you go and try to work it out*</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>9</p></td><td /><td /><td><p>Student focus group</p></td><td><p><italic>I learnt about when</italic><bold><italic>we make mistakes, we can just make another one</italic></bold><italic>.</italic></p><p><italic>We can design clothes in the Maker's Empire</italic><bold><italic>and we can ask people, do you like these coloured clothes,</italic></bold><italic>and if they say yes, we can make the clothes.</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>10</p></td><td /><td /><td><p>Teacher focus group</p></td><td><p><bold><italic>Not one child in my class got upset</italic></bold><italic>that they had a hole in their boat... they knew, this is either going to work or not, but they were not that upset if it did not... so their</italic><bold><italic>failures were seen more as like a stepping stone</italic></bold><italic>than a disaster.</italic></p><p><italic>We had a little discussion just last week about difficulties they were having with the app and who had a solution for the difficulty, and he was busting, absolutely busting to answer the question</italic><bold><italic>and he just eloquently put it together in these sentences that I've not heard him speak before.</italic></bold></p><p><italic>So, a few of my lower-ability kids, I found</italic><bold><italic>their confidence improved a lot.</italic></bold><italic>And they came up with really fantastic, exciting ideas, and that</italic><bold><italic>increased the excitement and engagement.</italic></bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>11</p></td><td><p><bold>STEM curriculum and pedagogy</bold></p></td><td><p>Builds STEM (and other) knowledge</p></td><td><p>Reflective journal</p></td><td><p><bold><italic>Metalanguage - platform, scale, resize, embed, view, rotation. Spatial awareness - size and placements of shapes and objects</italic></bold><italic>. Problem solving - how to place objects flat on top of each other.</italic></p><p><bold><italic>Building up the background knowledge</italic></bold><italic>required and setting them up for success.</italic></p><p><italic>That children learn through</italic><bold><italic>experimentation, guidance</italic></bold><italic>and enjoyment*</italic></p><p><italic>Ultimately, the boats were all a similar size and shape, and it was</italic><bold><italic>questionable whether all students could correctly identify the factors that would make their boat float or sink and link these to actual scientific principles.</italic></bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>12</p></td><td /><td /><td><p>Post survey</p></td><td><p><italic>I have been adapting the Gruffalo plan from Maker Empire to suit the other activities and where my students are at</italic><bold><italic>for Literacy.</italic></bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>13</p></td><td /><td /><td><p>Teacher focus group</p></td><td><p><italic>And because we'd gone out before and had a go at making a boat out of foil... I just think that they had a</italic><bold><italic>much better context and background science knowledge</italic></bold><italic>that they would not have had otherwise.</italic></p><p><italic>The</italic><bold><italic>process from problem solving</italic></bold><italic>through to the design and make process including the use of the</italic><bold><italic>Makers Empire app and the 3D printers</italic></bold><italic>*</italic></p><p><italic>I started the lesson off by reminding the class about our Science lesson last week where we went to the outdoor Makerspace and</italic><bold><italic>experimented</italic></bold><italic>with things that float or do not float - first</italic><bold><italic>natural materials</italic></bold><italic>, and then</italic><bold><italic>man-made materials.</italic></bold></p><p><italic>Instead of just talking about</italic><bold><italic>vocabulary</italic></bold><italic>we did a mind map of the story, including</italic><bold><italic>details of characters, setting, plot, main idea and author's purpose.</italic></bold></p><p><italic>They were also developing their</italic><bold><italic>spatial awareness</italic></bold><italic>skills using the app.</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>14</p></td><td /><td><p>Interdisciplinary</p><p>Problem-focused</p><p>Project-based</p><p>Authentic</p></td><td><p>Reflective journal</p></td><td><p><italic>...</italic><bold><italic>design thinking process</italic></bold><italic>- have not looked carefully at it before other than in the context of</italic><bold><italic>project based learning.*</italic></bold></p><p><italic>Teachers had a problem of losing the keys and needed a solution.</italic><bold><italic>We suggested possible ideas and solutions</italic></bold><italic>, discussing</italic><bold><italic>advantages and disadvantages</italic></bold><italic>of each idea, and finally voting on the best solution... to create a personalised name tag for each teacher!*</italic></p><p><italic>We need our children to</italic><bold><italic>be hands on, problem solvers</italic></bold><italic>, able to</italic><bold><italic>investigate, make predictions, design, plan and be part of their learning process.*</italic></bold></p><p><italic>...approaching</italic><bold><italic>real life problems</italic></bold><italic>rather than teaching the concept as it is...</italic></p><p><italic>Learning about Makerspaces and more about Constructivism approaches to learning. I really found this beneficial and very relevant in terms of</italic><bold><italic>how pedagogy needs to develop to meet the needs of today's learners.</italic></bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>15</p></td><td /><td><p>Student-centred</p><p>Modelling</p><p>Instructing</p><p>Facilitating</p><p>Partnerships</p><p>Expert teacher</p><p>Mentor</p></td><td><p>Teacher focus group</p></td><td><p><italic>I found having a really relaxed environment when we did it,</italic><bold><italic>no structure about where they were sitting or working</italic></bold><italic>... they felt really free to just go and</italic><bold><italic>ask a friend or work together</italic></bold><italic>and do whatever they needed to do. It worked well.*</italic></p><p><italic>...and then I gave a</italic><bold><italic>lot of student choice</italic></bold><italic>, and that worked really well because there are some characters that are quite colourful in my class.</italic></p><p><italic>Today we had our STREAM showcase afternoon where we</italic><bold><italic>invited the parents to come in to our classroom</italic></bold><italic>and see what we had been learning about.</italic></p><p><italic>They were a</italic><bold><italic>little bit like teachers</italic></bold><italic>. I could step back a little bit, and I had a few other little teachers in the room that would</italic><bold><italic>run around and show the others.</italic></bold></p><p><italic>So, it was really good that students were becoming</italic><bold><italic>peer coaches</italic></bold><italic>themselves, which encouraged them on a deeper level. So, that was really good to see in my class.</italic></p><p><italic>The session facilitated a lot of</italic><bold><italic>peer mentoring</italic></bold><italic>which was nice to see amongst the students.</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>16</p></td><td /><td /><td><p>Reflective journal</p></td><td><p><italic>I found I</italic><bold><italic>stepped back a lot more</italic></bold><italic>than I would normally, that I was a lot freer, and sort of less planned...</italic><bold><italic>it was really driven by them</italic></bold><italic>and where they were going with it.*</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>17</p></td><td /><td /><td><p>Lesson observation</p><p>(field notes)</p></td><td><p><bold><italic>Questioning</italic></bold><italic>- asking students before they recorded their questions for their surveys to</italic><bold><italic>share some ideas*</italic></bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>18</p></td><td /><td /><td><p>Post survey</p></td><td><p><italic>...asking</italic><bold><italic>open ended questions</italic></bold><italic>and</italic><bold><italic>scaffolding their thinking</italic></bold><italic>(</italic>e.g. <italic>you have to think how big the Teddy is... she encourages them to 'use the design you already have and improve it' =</italic> <bold><italic>constructivist approach/strengthening creativity*</italic></bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>19</p></td><td /><td /><td><p>Teachers' planning</p></td><td><p><italic>Resources:</italic><bold><italic>A Home for Hermit Crab</italic></bold><italic>by Eric Carle -</italic><bold><italic>BBC 'Amazing Crabs'</italic></bold><italic>video</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>20</p></td><td /><td><p>Collaboration</p><p>Communication</p><p>Knowledge exchange</p><p>Team work</p></td><td><p>Reflective journal</p></td><td><p><italic>And it was really good to see them</italic><bold><italic>just working in groups</italic></bold><italic>, designing it,</italic><bold><italic>talking about what features</italic></bold><italic>they wanted in their characters.*</italic></p><p><italic>Some students did not have that much experience using iPads and the apps, whereas other students did. So, it was good to see that students who had more experience were, you know,</italic><bold><italic>guiding them and teaching them</italic></bold><italic>,</italic><bold><italic>sharing their knowledge,</italic></bold><italic>as opposed to me giving them feedback.</italic></p><p><italic>And it was incredible to see what they could figure out just by playing around with the app and</italic><bold><italic>then share with their peers</italic></bold><italic>,</italic><bold><italic>rather than me keeping them all together</italic></bold><italic>, and we are going to go through it one step at a time.</italic></p><p><italic>Students watched closely as their</italic><bold><italic>peers demonstrated</italic></bold><italic>. They were more engaged watching their peers than the tutorial.</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>21</p></td><td /><td /><td><p>Post survey</p></td><td><p><italic>T</italic><bold><italic>emphasis on teamwork</italic></bold><italic>B. Need to reach a decision</italic><bold><italic>as a team</italic></bold><italic>. Emphasis on</italic><bold><italic>talking and listening to each other</italic></bold><italic>.*</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>22</p></td><td /><td /><td><p>Teacher focus group</p></td><td><p><bold><italic>Discussing with peers</italic></bold><italic>about problems and successes...</italic><bold><italic>collegiality,</italic></bold><italic>and working on problems together.</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>23</p></td><td /><td /><td><p>Student focus group</p></td><td><p><italic>I did the face...yes, she did the face over here, and I did the ears. And she did the little body...</italic><bold><italic>we worked together.</italic></bold></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>24</p></td><td /><td><p>Design thinking principles</p></td><td><p>Post survey</p></td><td><p><italic>It helps teachers to understand</italic><bold><italic>the process of designing and making</italic></bold><italic>and how to</italic><bold><italic>structure learning experiences</italic></bold><italic>in the Makerspace.</italic></p><p><bold><italic>The design process</italic></bold><italic>... and how to encourage students to use design</italic><bold><italic>to solve a problem*</italic></bold><italic>.</italic></p><p><bold><italic>Design process</italic></bold><italic>- have not looked carefully at it before... and in the</italic><bold><italic>context of project-based learning.*</italic></bold></p><p><bold><italic>The design thinking process</italic></bold><italic>and how to implement it</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>25</p></td><td /><td /><td><p>Teacher focus group</p></td><td><p><italic>What can I do now to improve it so that it does meet the</italic><bold><italic>success criteria</italic></bold><italic>of a boat. And seeing them be able to</italic><bold><italic>go back to the original design:</italic></bold><italic>What do I do?</italic></p><p><italic>Yes... something that really amazed me was their ability to</italic><bold><italic>refine their designs.</italic></bold><italic>With things earlier in the year, it was: My work's finished, we are done. Whereas now the feedback that they are giving their peers on</italic><bold><italic>what worked, what did not work</italic></bold><italic>.</italic>*</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>26</p></td><td /><td /><td><p>Reflective journal</p></td><td><p><italic>Before we went to the Makerspace I asked the class to help me come up with</italic><bold><italic>some criteria to test our boats against</italic></bold><italic>. As a class we came up with: 1. Does it have any holes? 2. Can it float? 3. Can it float for 5 minutes? 4. Can it hold a plastic teddy bear?</italic></p><p><italic>Students beginning to</italic><bold><italic>plan their design</italic></bold><italic>but also</italic><bold><italic>make modifications</italic></bold><italic>along the way, and learning how to</italic><bold><italic>verbalise their reasons</italic></bold><italic>for making these changes.*</italic></p><p><italic>Some groups had finished and were testing their object in the hermit crabs tank to see if it worked and</italic><bold><italic>using the success criteria</italic></bold><italic>to check if it needed any</italic><bold><italic>modifications</italic></bold><italic>.</italic><bold><italic>The technology helped with this.*</italic></bold></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*Indicates examples counted under two or more primary codes</p> <hd id="AN0155872722-30">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0155872722-31"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref17" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Asghar A, Ellington R, Rice E, Johnson F, Prime G. Supporting STEM education in secondary science contexts. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning. 2012; 6; 2: 85-125. 10.7771/1541-5015.1349</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref72" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Au W. Teaching under the new taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2011; 43; 1: 25-45. 10.1080/00220272.2010.521261</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref40" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2012). The Australian Curriculum. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/technologies/design-and-technologies/">www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/technologies/design-and-technologies/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref45" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barton A, Tan E, Greenberg D. The Makerspace movement: sites of possibilities for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM. Teachers College Record. 2017; 119: 1-44. 10.1177/016146811711900608</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref55" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bevan B. The promise and promises of making in science education. Studies in Science Education. 2017; 53; 1: 75-103. 10.1080/03057267.2016.1275380</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref61" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Braha D, Reich Y. Topological structures for modeling engineering design processes. Research in Engineering Design. 2003; 14: 185-219. 10.1007/s00163-003-0035-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref32" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brears L, MacIntrye B, O'Sullivan G. Preparing teachers for the 21st century using PBL as an integrated strategy in science and technology education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal. 2011; 16; 1: 36-46</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref10" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bybee, R. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher (Sept.), pp. 30-35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref11" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bybee. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. National Science Teachers' Association. Arlington: NSTA Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bower, M, Stevenson, M, Falloon, G.W, Forbes, A, & Hatzigianni, M. (2018). Makerspaces in primary school settings: Advancing 21st century and STEM capabilities using 3D design and 3D printing. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University. Retrieved from https://dern.acer.org/dern/ict-research/page/makerspaces-inprimary-school-settings.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erdogan N, Bozeman TSahin A. Models of project-based learning for the 21st century. A practice-based model of STEM teaching. 2015: Rotterdam; Sense: 31-42. 10.1007/978-94-6300-019-2_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fierst K, Diefenthaler A, Diefenthaler G. Design thinking for educators. 2011: Riverdale; IDEO</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilbert J. Educational makerspaces: disruptive, educative or neither. New Zealand Journal of Teachers' Work. 2017; 14; 2: 80-98. 10.24135/teacherswork.v14i2.232</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gwet, K. (2012). Handbook of inter-rater reliability (3rd editon). Advanced Analytics: Gaithersburg.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heckman J, Kautz T. Hard evidence on soft skills. Labour Economics. 2012; 19: 451-464. 10.1016/j.labeco.2012.05.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henriksen D. Creating STEAM with design thinking: beyond STEM and arts integration. The STEAM Journal. 2017; 3; 1: 1-11</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hira A, Joslyn C, Hynes MCardella M, Meier R, Pears A. Classroom makerspaces: identifying the opportunities and challenges. Proceedings of the frontiers in education conference. 2014: Madrid; IEEE Computer Society: 404-409Retrieved from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7044263</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holmlund T, Lesseig K, Slavit D. Making sense of STEM education in K-12 contexts. International Journal of STEM Education. 2018; 5; 32: 1-18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Honey M, Pearson G, Schweingruber H. STEM integration in K-12 education: status, prospects and an agenda for research. 2014: Washington DC; National Academies Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsu Y, Baldwin S, Ching Y. Learning through making and maker education. Technology Trends. 2017; 61: 589-594. 10.1007/s11528-017-0172-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johns, G, & Mentzer, N. (2016). STEM integration through design and inquiry. Technology and Engineering Teacher, Nov, 13–17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keune A, Peppler K, Wohlwend K. Recognition in makerspaces: Supporting opportunities for women and "make" a STEM career. Computers in Human Behavior. 2019; 99: 368-380. 10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159-174. 10.2307/2529310</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marshall, J, & Harron, J. (2018). Making learners: a framework for evaluating making in STEM education. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 12(2), Article 2. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1749</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mohr-Schroeder M, Cavalcanti M, Blyman KSahin A. STEM education: understanding the changing landscape. A practice-based model of STEM teaching. 2015: Rotterdam; Sense: 3-14. 10.1007/978-94-6300-019-2_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrison J, McDuffie A, French B. Identifying key concepts of teaching and learning in a STEM school. School Science and Mathematics. 2015; 115; 5: 244-255. 10.1111/ssm.12126</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niederhauser D, Schrum LSampson D, Spector J, Ifenthaler D, Isaisa P. Enacting STEM education for digital age learners: the maker movement goes to school. CELDA 2016 conference: Cognition and exploratory learning in the digital age. 2016: Mannheim; International Association for Development of the Information Society: 357-360ISBN 9789898533555.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Office of the Chief Scientist. Australia's STEM workforce: science, technology, engineering and mathematics. 2016: Canberra; Australian GovernmentRetrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Australias-STEM-workforce%5ffull-report.pdf">www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Australias-STEM-workforce%5ffull-report.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, Los Angeles). Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5j3859cf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osborne J, Simon S, Collins S. Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education. 2003; 25; 9: 1049-1079. 10.1080/0950069032000032199</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, A. (2012). A justification for STEM education. Technology and Engineering Teacher (May-June), 1-5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanders MMiddleton H. Integrative STEM education and "best practice". Explorations of best practice in technology, design & engineering education. 2012: Queensland; Griffith Institute for Educational Research: 103-117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scardamalia M, Bereiter CSawyer K. Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and technology. Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. 2006: New York; Cambridge University Press: 97-118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sterelny KSchantz R. Externalism, epistemic artefacts and the extended mind. The externalist challenge: new studies on cognition and intentionality. 2004: Berlin; de Gruyter: 239-254. 10.1515/9783110915273.239</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stohlmann M, Moore T, Roehrig G. Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research. 2012; 2; 1: 28-34. 10.5703/1288284314653</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Techakosit S, Nilsook P. The development of STEM literacy using the learning process of scientific imagineering through AR. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. 2018; 13; 1: 230-238. 10.3991/ijet.v13i01.7664</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> von Krogh G, Ichijo K, Nonaka I. Enabling knowledge creation: unlocking the mystery of tacit knowledge. 2000: New York; Oxford University Press. 10.1007/978-1-349-62753-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wieman C. Applying new research to improve science education. Issues in Science and Technology. 2012; 29; 1: 25-32</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zollman A. Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics. 2012; 112; 1: 12-19. 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00101.x</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0155872722-32"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> Further details of this can be found at: https://<ulink href="http://www.makersempire.com/">www.makersempire.com/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Garry Falloon; Anne Forbes; Michael Stevenson; Matt Bower and Maria Hatzigianni</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref75"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1330232
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: STEM in the Making? Investigating STEM Learning in Junior School Makerspaces
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <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="%22Forbes%2C+Anne%22">Forbes, Anne</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stevenson%2C+Michael%22">Stevenson, Michael</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bower%2C+Matt%22">Bower, Matt</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hatzigianni%2C+Maria%22">Hatzigianni, Maria</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Research+in+Science+Education%22"><i>Research in Science Education</i></searchLink>. Apr 2022 52(2):511-537.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 27
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– 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="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</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="%22Educational+Technology%22">Educational Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Shared+Resources+and+Services%22">Shared Resources and Services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11165-020-09949-3
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0157-244X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Makerspaces are recent additions to schools and have been promoted as a means of developing STEM knowledge and skills. According to literature, the practical nature of making supports deeper engagement with STEM concepts and enhances development of STEM capabilities such as creativity, critical thinking, problem solving and collaboration. However, to date, limited empirical work has been completed investigating STEM learning in school makerspaces. This article reports outcomes from a study of 24 classroom makerspaces, where 5-8-year olds used 3D printing technology to design and develop artefacts responding to different problems, needs and opportunities. Findings were mixed, with evidence supporting makerspaces as effective for STEM skill and disposition development but more limited in their capacity to build STEM knowledge, unless this was explicitly identified and targeted by teachers. This paper questions assumptions about makerspaces as implicitly effective for STEM knowledge-building, arguing that teachers must specifically target conceptual outcomes in planning and teaching if makerspaces are to be effective for this purpose. Also, findings suggest the need to rethink how makerspaces contribute to holistic STEM literacy development, moving beyond current perspectives focused on learning "about" STEM, to one where makerspaces are viewed as "epistemic environments" beneficial to knowledge-building, "of" STEM. Findings will be of value to educators considering makerspaces as a component of STEM curriculum and infrastructure development.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1330232
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1330232
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11165-020-09949-3
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 27
        StartPage: 511
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: STEM Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Printing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Shared Resources and Services
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: STEM in the Making? Investigating STEM Learning in Junior School Makerspaces
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Falloon, Garry
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Forbes, Anne
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stevenson, Michael
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bower, Matt
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hatzigianni, Maria
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0157-244X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 52
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Research in Science Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1