Effect of Makerspace Professional Development Activities .../67531/metadc955091/m2/1/high_re… ·...

APPROVED: Gerald Knezek, Major Professor Lemoyne Dunn, Co-Major Professor Rhonda Christensen, Committee Member Cathie Norris, Interim Chair of the

Department of Learning Technologies Kinshuk, Dean of the College of Information Victor Prybutok, Vice Provost of the Toulouse

Graduate School

EFFECT OF MAKERSPACE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ON ELEMENTARY AND

MIDDLE SCHOOL EDUCATOR PERCEPTIONS OF INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGIES

WITH STEM (SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, MATHEMATICS)

Jennifer Renea Miller

Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS

December 2016

Miller, Jennifer Renea. Effect of Makerspace Professional Development Activities on

Elementary and Middle School Educator Perceptions of Integrating Technologies with STEM

(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics). Doctor of Philosophy (Learning

Technologies), December 2016, 129 pp., 40 tables, 5 figures, references, 91 titles.

This study investigated a Makerspace professional development program, the

Makers’ Guild, provided to teachers within north Texas over the course of a semester. The

research employed a constructionist approach delivered via 2D and 3D technologies during

STEM instructional activities within a creative space. Participants reported statistically

significant increases in self-reported competence in technology integration, confidence

levels toward integrating World Wide Web, Emerging Technologies for Student Learning,

Teacher Professional Development, and attitudes toward math, technology, science, and

STEM careers.

ii

Copyright 2016

by

Jennifer Renea Miller

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to many educators and organizations that supported my doctoral efforts. I

wish to acknowledge my major professor, Dr. Gerald Knezek, co-major professor Dr. Lemoyne

Dunn, and committee member Dr. Rhonda Christensen for their positive encouragement,

constructive feedback, expertise, and support. Appreciation is extended to the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, North Richland Hills Pubic Library, the Makerspot

community, and Birdville Independent School District for funding and supporting research

associated with the Makers’ Guild program. I would like to thank my children, Ezekiel Samuel

Miller and Nolan Alexander Miller, for attending and participating in many STEM and

Makerspace functions with me during the last five years, including teaching the public at

NASA’s Multiscale Magnetosphere student launch events. Your interpretations, perspectives,

and representations inspired so many to consider new approaches to STEM public education

efforts.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ vi LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1

Problem Statement ............................................................................................................. 1

Purpose of the Study........................................................................................................... 3

Significance of the Study ..................................................................................................... 4

Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 6

Hypotheses ......................................................................................................................... 6

Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................... 9

History of K-12 STEM Professional Development Approaches .......................................... 9

Technology Integration Professional Development Approaches ..................................... 11

Professional Development Models Supporting STEM Integrated Design ........................ 13

Experiential Learning ........................................................................................................ 15

Communication via Learning Technologies .......................................................... 15

Using Technology to Enhance Hands-On Instruction ........................................... 17

Experiential Learning Enhances STEM Skill Sets ................................................... 19

Learning Engagement via Media Arts ............................................................................... 20

Advantages and Disadvantages Integrating 2D and 3D Technologies ............................. 20

Teacher Perceptions on 2D and 3D Learning Technologies ............................................. 21

Future Research Trends .................................................................................................... 22 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 24

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 24

Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 25

Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 26

v

Research Design ................................................................................................................ 28

Instrumentation ................................................................................................................ 34

Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 36

Human Subject Protection ................................................................................................ 37 CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION OF DATA ........................................................................................... 39

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 39

Description of Subjects ..................................................................................................... 39

Research Question 1 ......................................................................................................... 41


TPSA C-21 Analyses by Gender ............................................................................. 60


Summary ........................................................................................................................... 86 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 90

Discussion of Findings ....................................................................................................... 91

Recommendations for Further Study ............................................................................... 98 APPENDIX A. MAKER’S GUILD LEARNING OBJECTIVES ............................................................... 102 APPENDIX B. CHALLENGE CARD EXAMPLES ............................................................................... 105 APPENDIX C. RESEARCH SCHOOL APPLICATION, ACCEPTANCE LETTER, IRB .............................. 109 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 118

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Page

1. Participating Campuses by Socioeconomic Cluster .......................................................... 40

2. Subject Occupation ........................................................................................................... 41

3. Descriptive Statistics for Pre-Post Stages of Adoption for All Respondents Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ......................................................... 44

4. Paired t-Test Results for Pre-Post Stages of Adoption for all Respondents Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ......................................................... 44

5. Stages of Adoption for Female Teachers Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities, Pre-Post ..................................................................................... 44

6. Paired t-Test Results for Pre-Post Stages of Adoption for Female Teachers Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ..................................................... 45

7. Descriptive Statistics for Stages of Adoption for Three Groups of Educators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ..................................................... 46

8. Paired t-Test Results for Pre-Post Stages of Adoption for Educators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities, All Occupations Combined ............ 46

9. Descriptive Statistics for TPSA C-21 Pre-Post Scores for All Respondents Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ......................................................... 48

10. Paired Sample Pre-Post t-Test Results for TPSA C-21 Scales for All Respondents Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ............................... 49

11. TPSA C-21 Pretest Descriptives For Two Educator Occupations Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ....................................................................... 51

12. ANOVA by Occupation for TPSA C-21 Pretest Results for Educators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ......................................................... 52

13. TPSA C-21 Posttest Descriptives For TwolEducator Occupations Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ....................................................................... 53

14. ANOVA by Occupation for TPSA C-21 Posttest Results For Educators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ......................................................... 54

15. Descriptive Statistics for TPSA C-21 Pretest Scores by Socioeconomic Level of School for Educators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities .............. 55

vii

16. ANOVA by Socioeconomic Level of Educator’s School for TPSA C-21 Pretest Scores Among Participants in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities .................... 57

17. Descriptive Statistics for TPSA C-21 Posttest Scores by Socioeconomic Level of School for Educators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities .............. 58

18. ANOVA by Socioeconomic Level of School for TPSA C-21 Posttest Scale Scores Among Educators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities .............. 60

19. Descriptive Statistics for TPSA C-21 Scales Pre-Post for Teacher Respondents Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ............................... 62

20. Paired Samples Pre-Post t-Test Results for TPSA C-21 Scales for Teachers Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ......................................................... 63

21. Paired Samples t-Test Descriptive Statistics for TPSA C-21 Scales for Female Teacher Respondents in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ............................... 64

22. Paired Samples t-Test Results for TPSA C-21 Scales for Female Teacher Respondents in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ......................................................... 65

23. Paired Samples Pre-Post Descriptive Statistics for STEM Semantics Survey for All Respondents Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ......... 67

24. Paired Samples t-Test Results for STEM Semantics Survey Scales for All Respondents Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ............................... 70

25. Descriptive Statistics for STEM Semantics Survey Pretest Scores for Educators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities, by Three Levels of Socio-economic Status of the Educators’ Schools ............................................................ 71

26. ANOVA Pretest Results for STEM Semantic Measures for Socioeconomic Level of School for Educators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ........ 73

27. Descriptive Statistics for STEM Semantics Survey Posttest Scale Scores by Socioeconomic Level of School, for Educators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ............................................................................................................................ 74

28. ANOVA by Socioeconomic Level of School Results for Posttest Scores on STEM Semantic Survey Measures for Educators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ............................................................................................................................ 75

29. Descriptive Statistics by Gender for STEM Semantics Pretest Survey Scales for Educators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ............................... 76

viii

30. ANOVA by Gender for Pretest STEM Semantic Survey Measures for Educators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ............................... 77

31. Descriptive Statistics by Gender for STEM Semantics Posttest Survey Measures for Educators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities .............. 78

32. ANOVA by Gender for STEM Semantics Posttest Measures for Educators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ......................................................... 79

33. ANOVA Descriptive Statistics for STEM Semantics Pretest Survey for Three Groups of Educators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities .............. 80

34. ANOVA Results for STEM Semantics Pretest Survey for Two Groups of Educators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ............................... 81

35. Descriptive Statistics for STEM Semantics Posttest Survey for Two Groups of Educators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ............................... 82

36. ANOVA Results for STEM Semantics Posttest Survey for Two Groups of Educators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ............................... 83

37. Paired Samples t-Test Pre-Post Descriptive Statistics for STEM Semantic Measures, Female Teacher Participants in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ...... 84

38. Paired Samples t-Test Pre-Post Result for STEM Semantic Measures, Female Teacher Participants in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ................................ 84

39. Paired Samples Pre-Post Descriptive Statistics for STEM Semantic Measures for Teachers from Low Income Area Schools Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ............................................................................................................................ 85

40. Paired Samples t-Test Pre-Post Results for STEM Semantic Measures for Teachers from Low Income Area Schools Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities ............................................................................................................................ 86

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1. Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework ............................... 19

2. Online project-based learning canvas course ................................................................... 30

3. Makerspace project-based learning workstation process ............................................... 33

4. Stage of Adoption January pretest questionnaire ............................................................ 43

5. Stages of Adoption April posttest questionnaire ............................................................. 43

CHAPTER1

INTRODUCTION

ProblemStatement

ThePresident'sCouncilofAdvisorsonScienceandTechnology(2010)identifiedthe

importanceofequippingbothteachersandstudentswithstrongscience,technology,

engineering,andmathematics(STEM)careerskillsetstoassistinpreparingafutureworkforce

thatwillparticipateinahighlycompetitiveglobaleconomy.Inresponsetotheknowledgeera,

schoolswillneedtofundamentallyshiftapproachesfroma“paradigmaticknowledge

environmentinwhichknowledgeischaracterizedasabstractoranalytictoasituatedcognition

environmentinwhichknowledgeisunderstoodasanarrativethatisspecific,personal,and

contextualized”(Marsick,1998,p.126).Recentresearchhighlightscriticalareasneededto

improveSTEMeducationeffortstoincludestrongerpartnershipsbetweenschooldistricts,

state,federal,andindustrythatcenteronimprovingtrainingandretrainingofK-12teachersto

fillcurrentskillsetsandknowledgegapsexistinginSTEMeducation(Batts&Lesko,2011).

TransformativeSTEMlearningspaceshavegrownrapidlyinschools,libraries,and

museumsas“LearningLabs”or“Makerspaces.”Thesespacesaredesignedtoencouragedeep

engagementwithSTEM-integratedcontent,criticalthinking,problemsolving,andcollaboration

whilesparkingcuriosity(Koh&Abbas,2015).Challengesfacingeducatorsinterestedin

providinginnovativeSTEMpracticethroughaclassroomMakerspaceexperienceinclude

standardizedtesting,lackofteacherpreparation,andlimitedaccesstotechnologyand

resources(Hira,Joslyn,&Hynes,2014).

1

AccordingtotheCongressionalResearchServiceReporttoCongress(Kuenzi,2008),

thereisaconfirmedconcernregardingSTEMpreparationprogramsservingstudents,teachers,

andpractitioners.LiteratureidentifieschallengesinSTEMprofessionaldevelopmentprograms

(Nadelsonetal,2013).TeachersdoplayacriticalroleinregardtostudentSTEMperceptions.

Forexample,Knezek,Christensen,andTyler-Wood’s(2011)MSOSW(MiddleSchoolersOutto

SavetheWorld)findingsindicatedthatgapsexistedregardingthe“perceptionstowards

science,technology,engineering,andmathematicsheldbymiddleschoolstudentsversusthose

oftheirteachers”(p.111).Findingssuggestedthatthemillennialgeneration’slower

perceptionstowardSTEMandSTEMcareersversusoldergenerationperceptionscouldresultin

alowerstandardoflivingforthemillennialgeneration.

Jang(2016)identifiedSTEMskillsetstoincludecriticalthinking,readingcomprehension,

activelistening,speaking,complexproblemsolving,judgementanddecisionmaking,writing,

monitoring,activelearning,timemanagement,coordination,systemsanalysis,mathematics,

socialperceptiveness,systemsevaluation,instructing,science,andlearningstrategies.

Professionaldevelopmentprogramsoftenfailtoincludeafocusonscientificknowledgeand

pedagogicalexperiences,andmayproduceteacherswhohavelimitedconfidenceregarding

STEMskillsets(Murphy&Mancini-Samuelson,2012).Fewteachersengageinprofessional

developmentactivitiestoimprovescientificteachingafterreceivingdegrees(Cotabish,Dailey,

Hughes,&Robinson,2011).WithoutSTEMpreparedteacherswhohavepositivedispositions

towardsSTEM,howdoweimprovemiddleschoolstudentperceptionstowardSTEMandSTEM

careerpathways?

2

PurposeoftheStudy

Thepurposeofthisstudywastoexplorehowparticipationinaprofessional

developmentexperienceinvolvingMakerspacetechnologyaffectsparticipants’attitudesand

confidenceleveltowardSTEMandtechnologyintegrationoverthecourseofasemester.

Determiningfactorsthatinfluenceteachers’attitudesandconfidencelevelstowardSTEMand

technologyintegrationwillprovidevaluableinformationtoeducatorsandtheacademic

community.FindingscanbeusedtoguideSTEMteacherpreparationprogramstoimprove

teacherconfidenceandattitudestowardSTEMandtechnologyintegration.Accordingto

Morales,Knezek,andChristensen(2008),“self-efficacyisdefinedasconfidenceinone’s

competenceandisimportanttofacilitatinglearningexperiences”(p.127).Otherresearchers

reinforcetheimportanceofteacherconfidencelevelsalongwithteacherattitudes,definedas

perceptions,towardSTEMasbothtransfertostudents’attitudesandconfidencelevelstoward

STEM(Nadelsonetal.,2013).

KohandAbbas(2015)researchfindingssuggestedthatprofessionalsworkingin

LearningLabsorMakerspaceprogramsreceivetrainingtoincludestrongtechnology

integrationthataddresseswhytechnologyisappropriateandwhichtechnologieswillhelpto

achievedesiredlearningoutcomes.Makerspaces,definedas“informalsitesforcreative

productioninart,science,andengineeringwherelearnersblenddigitalandphysical

technologiestoexploreideas,learntechnicalskills,andcreatenewproducts”offeranew

environmenttoexploreSTEMconcepts(Sheridanetal.,2014,p.505).Researchisneededto

furtherunderstandhowpeopleexperiencelearninginMakerspacesandhowthisimpactsself-

efficacyandinformationbehavior(Fourie&Meyer,2015).

3

SignificanceoftheStudy

Thisresearchstudyaddressedtheneedtoexploreprofessionaldevelopmenteffectson

teacherattitudesandconfidencelevelstowardinstructionaltechnologyandSTEM.The

proposedstudywasbuiltuponpreviousSTEMandtechnologyintegrationresearchexploring

teacherperceptionsandconfidencelevelsinSTEMcontentareasandtechnologyintegration

approaches,providingacontinuationofpreviousresearchtowardanewidentified

environment—Makerspace.Improvementsinteacherprofessionaldevelopmentprogramsmay

increasetheoverallstudentSTEMexperienceinlowerandmiddleschoolprograms.Endresults

mayleadtoahighlyconfidentandskilledSTEMelementaryandmiddleschooleducation

workforcewhileencouragingmorestudentstoconsiderenteringaSTEMcareerpathway.

Learningtheoriesonhowchildrenandadultsbestlearnareoftendeeplyrootedinpast

experiences,personalperspectivessharedwithinawidercommunity,andmeaningfullearning

exchangesanddiscoursesharedwithinasocialcontext(Gilakjani,Lai-Mei,&Ismail,2013).

Traditionalbehaviorallearningtheoriesstresstheimportanceoftheinstructor(Gilakjani,Lai-

Mei,&Ismail,2013).Knowledgeistransmittedfromthemindoftheteacherthroughlectures

andwordstothestudentGilakjani,Lai-Mei,&Ismail,2013)..Activelearningtheoriesevolved

fromtraditionalapproaches.Learners’activelyconstructapersonalinterpretationofthinking

asaresultofinnatecapacitiesinteractingwithpersonalexperiences(Gilakjani,Lai-Mei,&

Ismail,2013).Constructivism,acognitivetheoryproposedbyJeanPiaget,proposesthat

learningtakesplacethroughdiscoveryandisconstructedbylearnersthemselveswhile

interactingwithintheenvironment(Tangdhanakanond,Pitiyanuwat,&Archwamety,2006).

Withindiscoverylearningenvironments,teacherscreatesituations,oftenusingrealworld

4

situations,toengagestudentstodialogueaboutaproblem.Constructionism,acognitivetheory

introducedbySeymourPapert(1993),takesPiaget’sconstructivismtheoryastepfurther

(Tangdhanakanondetal.,2006).Papertexpandedconstructivistviewstosuggestthatlearning

happensmosteffectivelywhenpeopleareactiveinmakingobjectstosharewithalarger

community(Papert&Harel,1991).“Constructionistpedagogiesrequirethatteachersbecomea

facilitatororguide,recognizingthatstudentsdeveloptheirownstrategiestoconstructtheir

ownknowledge”(Salvo,1998).Thisstudyemployedaconstructionistlearningtheoryapproach

inwhichthelearnercollaboratedwithotherparticipants,whichrequiredthelearnerto

constructanartifactandsharewithinawiderlearningcommunity.

ActivelearningthroughtheartofaMakerspacedesignincreasesself-directedlearning

andprovidesadeeperlearningexperience(Sheridanetal.,2014).Throughtheprocessof

designing,making,andcreatinganobject,learnersobtainfeelingsofsatisfactionanddevelopa

“myriadofinterpersonalandtechnicalskills”(Hiraetal.,2014,p.1).TheMakerspace

movementisbuiltuponthefoundationofconstructionism,whichisa“philosophyofhands-on

learningthroughbuildingthingsandistheapplicationofconstructivistlearningprinciplestoa

hands-onenvironment”(Kurti,Kurti,&Fleming,2014,p.8).Constructionismalignsandextends

constructivismtofocusexplicitly“onhowthemakingofexternalartifactssupportslearners’

conceptualunderstanding”(Sheridanetal.,2014,p.507).Makerspaceareasprovideforan

authenticexperienceinwhichlearnersparticipateinacommunity,takingonleadershipand

teachingrolesusingdiversetools,materials,andprocessestoproblemsolverealworldproject-

basedlearningscenarios(Smay&Walker,2015).

5

STEMprofessionaldevelopmentresearchledbythei-STEMsummerinstitute(Nadelson

et.al.,2012)confirmsthatcommunityspaceisaneffectivecomponenttoprofessional

development.ThisfindingissupportedbyadditionalresearchproducedbytheNational

AeronauticsandSpaceAdministration(NASA)andCaliforniaStateUniversitySystem’sSTEMK-

12professionaldevelopment’sIndependentCollaborativeModel,whichcenteredona

commonthemeorNASAmission(Liddicoat,2008).

ResearchQuestions

Thisstudyfocusedonthefollowingresearchquestions.

1. TowhatextentdoeducatorswhoparticipateinSTEMMakerspaceprofessional

developmentactivitiesincreasetheirself-appraisalofcompetencein

technologyintegrationabilities?


developmentactivitiesincreaseintheirconfidenceinintegratingnew

informationtechnologyintopedagogicalpractice?


developmentactivitiesbecomemorepositiveintheirattitudestowardSTEM?

Hypotheses

Hypothesesofthisstudyincludethefollowing.Teacherswillreportanincreasein

attitudestowardinstructionaltechnologyasaresultofprofessionaldevelopment.Teacherswill

reportanincreaseinconfidencelevelstowardinstructionaltechnology.Teacherswho

participateinaprofessionaldevelopmentprogramincludingtargetedSTEMprofessional

developmentwillimprovetheirattitudestowardsSTEM.

6

Definitions

Definitionsusedinthisdissertationfollow.

2DLearningTechnology:Computer-basedtechnologyusedtocreate2Dartifactssuchas

thedrawingofamathematicalflatshapeasanaideinthelearningprocessused

forgraphicdesignorquilting.

3DLearningTechnology:Computer-basedtechnologysuchastheconstructionof3D

shapesusedforusedtocreatea3Dartifactasanaideinthelearningprocess

usedfor3Dprinting,origami,orvirtualrealitygaming.

Attitude:“Positive,negative,orneutralfeelingtowardanobjectorbehavior.Attitude

canvaryinstrengthanddirection,fromextremelyfavorabletoextremely

unfavorable,oranypointinbetween”(Pryor,B.W.,Pryor,C.R.,&Kang,R.,

2016).

Confidence:Self-efficacyor“confidenceinone’scompetence”(Moraleset.al.,2008).

Fabrication:Toconstruct,create,andassembleapart

7

Makerspace:Informalsitesforcreativeexpressioninscience,technology,thearts,

engineering,andmathematicswherelearnersblenddigitalandphysical

technologiesandtoolstoincludefabricationtechnology,digitalarttechnologies,

robotics,greenscreentechnologies,digitalaudio,augmentedreality,origami,

andvirtualrealitytoexploreandexpandideas,problemsolve,learntechnical

skillsets,andproducenewlearningartifactsorproductsthatcanbesharedwith

awidercommunity(Sheridanetal.,2014)

MediaArts:Humancommunicationthroughaudio,photography,digitalart,video,and

interactivemedia

STEM:Science,technology,engineering,andmathematics

STEAM:Science,technology,engineering,thearts,andmathematics

VirtualLearningEnvironment(VLE):Web-enabledmultimedia-drivenlearningsystem

integratedwithsynchronousandasynchronouscommunicationtools(Das,2014)

8

CHAPTER2

LITERATUREREVIEW

AsrenewedinteresttowarddevelopingU.S.K-12STEMcurriculumadvanceaneed

foradditionalprofessionaldevelopmentresearchcontinues(Bouwma-Gearhart,2012).Batts

andLesko(2011)highlightthecontinuedcriticalneedtoimproveSTEMeducationalefforts.

TheCongressionalResearchServiceReport(Kuenzi,2008)toCongressfurtherhighlightsK-12

professionaldevelopmentconcernsregardingSTEMpreparationprogramsservingstudents,

teachers,andpractitioners.PrimarygoalsofresearchtargetingK-12STEMeducation

programsaretoincreasethenumberofstudentsparticipatinginSTEMacademicprograms,

enrichSTEMlearningexperiencesforbothteachersandstudents,andtoassistinincreasing

thenumberofstudentsenteringSTEMcareerpathways(Bouvier&Connors,2011).

LiteratureconfirmsK-12schoolsandprofessionaldevelopmentapproacheswillneedtobe

revampedtoincludeimprovedmodelstoimplementtheNextGenerationScienceStandards

(Brown,2015).AchallengefacingMakerspaceenvironmentsistheconsiderableamountof

STEMprofessionaldevelopmentneededtoimplementsuchprograms(Hiraetal.,2014).

OfteninformationprofessionalsandlibrariansfacilitateSTEMMakerspaceactivitiesbut

manylackskillsandcompetenciesrequiredtosustainMakerspaceprograms(Koh&Abbas,

2015).

HistoryofK-12STEMProfessionalDevelopmentApproaches

ThecurrentSTEMcareerworkforceshortage,whichcanbeattributedtothelackof

interestinSTEMpreparationprograms(Knezek,Christensen,&Tyler-Wood,2011),isnotanew

issuefacingU.S.employers.LiteratureexaminedidentifiedalonghistoryexploringK-12STEM

9

professionaldevelopmentapproaches.LubinskiandBenbow’s(2006)longitudinalresearch

findings,stemmingfromthe1971StudyofMathematicallyPrecociousYouthinitiative,

investigatedSTEMresearchencompassing35yearsandsuggested“effectivewaystoidentify

potentialforandtofacilitatethedevelopmentofscientificandSTEMexpertise”(p.4).Findings

highlighttheimportanceofnotbasingSTEMleadershipprogramsonstandardizedtestingbut

totailorSTEMprofessionalpreparationprogramswithparticipants(Lubinski&Benbow,2006).

TheliteraturesuggeststhatforstudentstobesuccessfulandengageinSTEMcareer

exploration,deepcontentknowledgeandconfidenceisnecessary(Moakler&Kim,2014).Many

programshavebeendevelopedtosupportSTEMmajors.However,barriersexistandthere

continuestobealackofliterature“focusingonimprovingSTEMconfidenceandattitudesasa

resultofSTEMprograminitiatives”(Huziak-Clark,Sondergeld,vanStaaden,Knaggs,&

Bullerjahn,2015,p.227).

Professionaldevelopmentprogramsoftenofferlimitedcoverageofscientific

knowledge,andpedagogicalexperience,andoftenproduceteacherswhohavelimited

confidenceregardingSTEMskillsets(Murphy&Mancini-Samuelson,2012).Teachers

experiencealackofprofessionaldevelopmentactivitiesfocusedonimprovingscientific

teachingaftercompletingundergraduatedegreesandpreserviceprograms(Cotabishetal.,

2011).Sun,Finger,andLiu(2014)suggestthatdisconnectsexistinregardtotechnology

competenciesandskillssetsneededinpostsecondaryexpectationsthatfacultydesignwithin

ane-learningplatforms.Inaddition,preserviceteachersencounternoformalSTEMtraining

andatightpreparationprogramthattypicallylastsayeartoinclude“generaleducationstudies,

subjectspecificpedagogy,teachingpracticeinschools,andaservice-learningcomponent”(Teo

10

&Ke,2014,p.19).Facultyoftenfailtoactuallydesignanddelivereffectiveinstructionto

promotesocialengagementandknowledgeconstruction(Sun,etal.,2014).

Nadelsonetal.(2012)suggestedalackofteachers’exposuretoscientificinquiryin

postsecondaryprogramscorrespondstoalackofexposuretoauthenticinquirymodelsusedto

validateprofessionaldevelopment.Elementaryteachersareoftenthefirsttointroduce

studentstotheSTEMpipeline(Nadelsonetal.,2012).Unfortunately,researchsuggeststhat

fewelementaryteachersengageinprofessionaldevelopmenttoimprovescientificinstruction

(Cotabishetal.,2011).Researchthatincludedover300primaryinstructorsfoundstrong

relationshipsbetweenscientificprofessionaldevelopmentandconfidencelevelsinteaching

science,suggestingthathighqualityandsustainedprofessionaldevelopmentisneeded

(Murphy,Neil,&Beggs,2007).

TechnologyIntegrationProfessionalDevelopmentApproaches

Despitehavingimprovedaccesstobroadbandandexpandedinfrastructurecapabilities,

educationaltechnologieshaveyettobeeffectivelyintegratedintomostK-12classroom

environments(Keengwe,Georgina,&Wachira,2010).Teacherslackskillsetsandexpertise

regardinghowtousetechnologyandlackpedagogicalknowledgeinregardtointegratingit

appropriately(Keengweetal.,2010).Federalandeducationagenciescontinuetostressthe

needforteacherprofessionaldevelopmentprogramstointegratetechnologyintothe

classroomeffectivelyandhavepromotedimprovedintegrationprogramsforoveradecade

(Keengweetal.,2010).

Inresponsetothefailureofpreserviceteachingprogramstointegratetechnology,the

U.S.DepartmentofEducationissuedthePreparingTomorrow’sTeacherstouseTechnology

11

(PT3)federalgrantprogramthatbeganin2000-2001(Polly,Mims,Shepherd,&Inan,2010).

ManyPT3programsreportedsuccessfuloutcomesintermsofthenumbersofnewteachers

infusinginstructionwithtechnology”(Christensen,Parker,&Knezek,2005,p.188).PT3

researchoutcomesindicatethat“teachercandidatesthatusedtechnologyduringfield

experiencesdisplayedhigherattitudestowardintegratingtechnologyduringinstruction”(Bahr,

Shaha,Farnsworth,Valerie,&Benson,2004,p.88).Christensen,Parker,&Knezek(2005)

measured“technologyskillsusedandstrategieslearned”throughtheU.S.Departmentof

EducationPreparingTomorrow’sTeacherstoUseTechnologyProgram(PT3)programina

comparativestudyinvestigatingtwouniversityteacherpreparationprograms,withone

providingaseparatebutrequiredcomputereducationcourseandtheotherintegrating

computereducationwithinexistingcoursework(pp.188-190).Researchoutcomesrevealed

that“methodsemployedinbothuniversitysystemsresultedinmeaningfulgains”andthat

preserviceteacherswhohadtheopportunitytodevelopmultimediapresentationstoshare

withawideraudienceaspartofthisprogramresultedinahigherconfidencetoward

integratingtechnologyintotheclassroom(Christensen,Parker,&Knezek,2005,p.196).

Christensen,Parker,&Knezek’s(2005)researchsuggestedthatmanyapproachestointegrating

technologyskillsinteacherpreparationprogramsareeffectiveaslongasauthentictechnology

integrationactivitiesarewelldesigned,participantshaveaccesstotechnology,andinstruction

isincludedontheuseoftechnologytools.PerhapsanevenmoreimportantcontributionofPT3

fundedprogramsisthatforthe“firsttimegeneralteachereducationfacultymembersbecame

intenselyinterestedinintegratingtechnologyintopreserviceteacherprogramsandcourses”

(Maddux,2006,p.152).

12

Additionalresearchhasinvestigatedteacherprogressionthroughstagestofurther

exploreteacherbarrierstointroducingtechnologiesintoK-12STEMprofessionaldevelopment

programs(Skaza,Crippen,&Carroll,2013).HooperandRieber(1995)offeraframeworkto

describelevelsoftechnologyadoptiontoincludefamiliarization,utilization,integration,

reorientation,andevolution.Nadelsonetal.(2012)provideastrongargumentlinkinglearning

andaffectivevariablestoincludeconfidence,anxiety,andself-efficacytoteachereffectiveness.

Theauthorsstresstheneedforstrongprofessionaldevelopmenttoassistteacherstobecome

morecomfortable,therebyenhancingpedagogicalcontentment(Nadelsonetal.,2012).Koh

andAbbas(2015)highlightedtheneedfortheAmericanLibraryAssociationtoupdate

curricularcompetenciestoaddressMakerspacelibraryprofessionals.Findingssuggestacritical

needtointroducelibrariansandMakerspaceprofessionalstoapproachesthatfacilitate

learningandtoimproveunderstandinghowtodesignuser-appropriateandhands-onlearning

(Koh&Abbas,2015).

ProfessionalDevelopmentModelsSupportingSTEMIntegratedDesign

HowareprofessionaldevelopmentmodelssupportingSTEMintegration?Feldmanand

Pirog's(2011)FranklinCountyResearchAcademiesforYoungScientists,STEMRAYS,program,

anafterschoolandsummerNationalScienceFoundation(NSF)researchstudyinitiative,

identifiedaneedforadditionalresearchinSTEMprofessionaldevelopmentprograms.STEM

RAYSresearchfindingssuggestedthatitisnecessaryforSTEMprogramstoincludethe

involvementofhighqualityinstruction.Teachersdonotnecessarilyneedextensiveformal

traininginthesciences.However,teachersshouldpossessastronginterestinteaching,

learning,anddoingscience(Feldman&Pirog,2011).

13

Baxter,Ruzicka,Beghetto,andLivelybrooks’(2014)researchattemptedtoimprove

teacherSTEMprofessionaldevelopment,withtheExcellenceinMathematicsandScience

Teaching(eMAST)project.TheeMASTprojectsupportedactivelearningviaface-to-face

learningexchangesthatwascontextualizedinauthenticexamplesandproblems,focusing

professionaldevelopmentonscientificinquiryandproblemsolvingstrategiestosupport

existingcurricula.eMASTfindingssuggestthatSTEMprofessionaldevelopmentshouldcenter

onmathematicsandscienceassistingteachersindevelopinganimprovedanddeeper

understandingofSTEMdisciplines.TheeMASTprojectproducedpositivechangesinteachers’

confidenceandpractice.Elementaryteachersfounditdifficultnottogeneralizeduring

scientificinquiry,highlightinganeedforadditionalresearch.eMASTfindingssuggestedthat

furtherresearchisneededonhowtobestfacilitatecollaborativediscussionthatfocusedon

“epistemologicalanddisciplinarydistinctions”(Baxteretal.,2014,p.111).

Professionaldevelopmentshouldencouragepeercoaching,practice,andtheabilityto

experienceinquiry-basedinstructionataminimumof45hoursannually(Cotabishetal.,2011).

Recentresearchinvestigatedtheimpactofathree-daySTEMprofessionaldevelopment

instituteonelementaryteachers’changesinattitudes,confidence,andself-efficacy(Nadelson

etal.,2013).Thestudyfoundsignificantevidenceindicatingthatshortperiodsoftargeted

STEMprofessionaldevelopmentcangreatlyinfluenceandimproveteacherconfidenceandself-

efficacy(Nadelsonetal.,2013).

AlackofresearchexistsexaminingSTEMknowledgebase,STEMskillsets,and

experiencesnecessaryforteacherstoimplementSTEMintegratedinstruction(Nadelsonetal.,

2013).Stohlmann,Moore,andRoehrig's(2012)exploredfactorsaffectingteachers’

14

implementationofanationalSTEMeducationprogram,ProjectLeadtheWay.Research

includedthefollowingtheoreticalframeworktheoryemployingactivitiesthat“buildonprior

knowledge,organizeknowledgearoundbigideas,includerealworldsituations,fostersocial

discourse,andincludeasocialelement”(Stohlmannetal.,2012,p.30).Instructionalactivities

shouldinclude“handsonapproachesusingmanipulative,cooperativelearning,discussion,

questioning,writingforreflection,problemsolving,appropriateintegrationoftechnology,and

theuseofassessment”(Stohlmannetal.,2012,p.29).

ExperientialLearning

CommunicationviaLearningTechnologies

Knowledgeis“beingactivelyconstructedbytheindividualandknowingisanadaptive

processwithinanexperientialenvironment”(Karagiorigi&Symeou,2005).Constructivism

proponentsarguethatbuildingknowledgeoccursinsidealearner’shead(Stager,2013;

Tangdhanakanondetal.,2006).However,constructionistsarguethatknowledge

transformationoccursasthelearnerispresentedopportunitiestobuildand“makeanartifact

withtheirownstyle”inspiringownership(Papert&Harel,1991).Papert(1993)proposedthat

learnersmustactivelyconstructsomethingtangibleoutsideofthelearner’shead,presenting

anartifactthatissharableandopentocritique,promotingtheabilityto“show,discuss,

examine,andreflectwithothersoncognitiveartifactsandproductscreated”

(Tangdhanakanondetal.,2006).

Researchershaveappliedconstructionisttheoriestoinvestigatecommunicationand

learningtechnologies,whichbuildupondesigningandcreatingatangibleartifactofanidea

(Sheridanetal.,2014).Constructionistpedagogiesencourageteacherstoactasafacilitator

15

while“learningoccursasstudentsdevelopnewideasthroughthemakingofsometypeof

externalartifact.Childrenbecomeencouragedastheyreflectuponandshareapersonalized

representationtogainnewknowledgeviaself-directedlearning”(Kafai&Resnick,1996,pp.1-

2).Constructionismwasborneoutofconstructivismperspectives.Constructionism

encompassestheideathat“learningisbuildingaknowledgestructureirrespectiveofthe

circumstancesoflearning,butaddstoconstructivismideasinthatlearninghappensespecially

felicitouslyinacontextwherethelearnerisconsciouslyengagedinconstructingapublicentity”

(Papert&Harel,1991).

Thedesignprocess“focusesonametarepresentationalcompetence,usingtoolsto

supportcommunicationofanidea,inwhichlearnersproblemsolve,createaprototype,and

assesshowitworks”(Sheridanetal.,2014,p.508).Aslearnershaveopportunitiestomakea

tangibleobjectofinterest,theybuildnewknowledgeandreinforcethroughsharingsocially

(Tangdhanakanondetal.,2006).Environmentsfacilitatingsimulationsemployingexploratory

learningenhanceproblemsolvingthroughanactivelearningandsocialcontext(Li,Cheng,&

Liu,2013).

Theadoptionofinformationandcommunicationtechnologiesbyteachersdevelops

throughdifferentstagesfrombeingaware,routineemploymentoftechnology,tocreativeuse

oftechnology(Mishra&Koehler,2006).Researchhasshowntheimportanceofteacher

confidenceforfacilitatingstudentlearning(Moralesetal.,2008;Hoy&Woolfolk,1990;

Henson,Bennet,Sienty,&Chambers,2000;Moore&Esselman,1992).ResearchbyMoraleset

al.(2008)employedtheTechnologyProficiencySelf-Assessment(TPSA)developedbyRopp

(1999)tomeasureteachertechnologyconfidencelevelsalignedtotheInternationalSocietyof

16

TechnologyEducation’sstandardstoover978elementaryandmiddleschoolteachersfrom

MexicoCityand932middleschoolteachersinDallas,Texas.Resultsindicatedstatistically

significantfindingstosupportthattheTPSAprovidesasoundconfidencelevelmeasureof

technologyproficienciesacrosslanguagesandborders(Moralesetal.,2008).Professional

developmentisneededtosupporttransformativelearningmethodsandactivitiestochallenge

teacherbeliefswhile“simultaneouslyprovidingsupportsothatteacherscanmanagefeelings

ofincompetenceandvulnerability”(Marsick,1998).

UsingTechnologytoEnhanceHands-OnInstruction

Howaretechnologiesusedtoenhancepedagogicalknowledgethatincorporate

constructionism?AlesandriniandLarson(2002)recommendteachersworkcollaboratively

contextualizing,clarifying,inquiring,planning,realizing,testing,modifying,interpreting,

reflecting,andcelebratingtoshareartifactsandfinalaccomplishmentstoawideraudience

duringprofessionaldevelopment.PresidentObama’sEducatetoInnovatecampaignstresses

theimportanceofcreativemakingexperiencesinwhichlearningdesignpromoteshands-on

activitiesthroughinformallearningspacesviamuseums,libraries,andcommunityspaces

(Sheridanetal.,2014).Sunetal.(2014)suggestincorporatinginstructionalapproachesthat

mergephysicalandvirtualandofferadesigneLearningapproachvia3Dprinting.Digitaltools

that“develop,challenge,andexpandpriorthinkingtobecomedisruptedcanleadtonew

understandingsviaamoreeffectivepedagogicalapproachenabledthroughnewtechnologies”

(Sunetal.,2014,p.210).Through“rapidprototyping,”learnerscanemploydigitalfabrication

tomakeanythingimaginable,inspiringK-12creativity,andhasshowntopositivelyaffect

attitudestowardsSTEMandSTEMcareers(Smith,2014).

17

TheTPACKframeworksupportstheuseoftechnologyasasupportfor“contentbeing

taughtandpedagogicalstrategiesforsuccessfuloutcomesorconfidence”andprovidesa

naturalframeworktowardaccessingSTEMattitudesandbeliefs(Smith,2014).The

TechnologicalPedagogicalContentKnowledge(TPACK)framework(Figure1)“buildsonLee

Shulman's(1986,1987)constructofpedagogicalcontentknowledge(PCK)toinclude

technologyknowledge”(Koehler,Mishra,&Cain,2013,p.13).BasedonShulman’s(1986)

theories,MishraandKoehler(2006)developedaninstructionalmodel,TPACK,for21stcentury

learningenvironmentsinvestigatingpedagogicalknowledge,contentknowledge,and

technologyknowledge(Matherson,Wilson,&Wright,2014).AliteraturereviewrevealsTPACK

researchisstillinitsinfancy,withaneedtoexploreTPACKcompetenciesalignedtocontent

domains,assessmentofteacherTPACKcompetencies,andfurtherdevelopmentofTPACK

instrumentation(Voogt,Knezek,Cox,Knezek,&tenBrummelhuis,2013).

Digitalfabricationtechnologiesareclassifiedintotwoareastoinclude2Dtechnologies

inwhichsubtractivetechniquesareemployedtotrimmaterialsusingpaperormetalor3D

technologiesthatusesiliconeorplasticmaterialexcursions(Smith,2014).TheSmith(2014)

casestudyemployedtheTPACKframeworktoaddressalackofresearchexploringpedagogical

practicesintegrating2Ddigitalfabricationtechnologiesintolanguageartsclassrooms.The

18

studydidreportanincreaseinmotivationthroughhands-oncreationofobjects.

Figure1.Technologicalpedagogicalcontent knowledge(TPACK)framework (MishraandKoehler,2006).

ExperientialLearningEnhancesSTEMSkillSets

HowcanexperientiallearningactivitiesenhanceSTEMskillsets?Research

investigatingMakerspaceenvironmentsfoundthatexperientiallearningactivitiesviadigital

tools,woodworking,electronics,circuitry,design,fabrication,music,art,transportation,and

foodthroughacreativespaceengagesallages,races,andpopulationsandfuelsaccessto

just-in-timeSTEMexperiences(Sheridanetal.,2014).Smith’s(2014)studyinvestigating

experientiallearningvia2Ddigitalfabricationprovidesadigitallearningframeworkinwhich

learnersclarify,visualize,prototype,implement,andreflect.Flowers,Raynor,andWhite

(2012)highlightchallengesfacingSTEMonlineteacherpreparationprogramsandsuggest

thatawidearrayofmethodsforevaluationbeincorporatedtoincludestudentportfoliosand

STEM-basedprojects.

19

LearningEngagementviaMediaArts

Thestudyofmediaartsenjoysalongandevolvingresearchhistorytoincludetraditional

technologiesembracingprintmedia,radio,andmoviesandnewerformsoftechnologiesto

includewebmediums,videogames,blogs,andfabricationtechnologies(Bequette&Brennan,

2008).Learningopportunitiestointegratedigitalmediaartoftenemployathree-pronged

approachincludingthestudyofmediaartsasaprocess,expressiveart,orhybridartcombining

theoldwiththenew(Bequette&Brennan,2008).Creativeuseoflearningtechnologiesvia

mediaanddigitalartaffectsthetypesofactivitiesavailabletostudentsandteachersBlack&

Browning,2011).Teachersoverwhelminglybelievetheydonothavepedagogicalsupportor

technicalsupporttoassistinintegratingdigitalartsandmediaintotheclassroomconfidently

(Black&Browning,2011).Creativityis“innovation,discovery,curiosity,imagination,

experimentation;andexplorationanddigitalprocessescanallowforatransformationtooccur

fromsomethingknowntoanewidea,previouslyunknown”(Black&Browning,2011,p.20).

Theuseof“digitalartsisstillinitsinfancyrelativetoothermediafamiliarandavailableto

artiststoday”,highlightingadditionalneedforfurtherresearch(Candy,2007,p.367).

AdvantagesandDisadvantagesIntegrating2Dand3DTechnologies

SpatialreasoningskillsetsarehighlydesiredinSTEMcareersthatrequireastrong

understandingoftherelationshipbetween3Dspaceandobjects(Park,Kim,&Sohn,2011).

Spatialvisualizationtestssuggestthatspatialvisualizationskillsdecreaseinlevelsof

performanceaslearnersageandcanbeimprovedthroughtraining(Parketal.,2011).Learning

canbeenhancedthroughtheemploymentofmaterialstoengagemultiplesensorymodality

(Horowitz&Schultz,2014).Researchsuggeststhatthetransferoflearningbetween2Dand3D

20

contextsishighlycomplex,changinggraduallyduringstagesofcognitivedevelopmentand

requirescarefulconsiderationtobestreducecognitiveoverloadorpreventdisruptivelearning

experiences(Barr,2010).

Improvementsin2Dand3Dtechnologieshaveledtomorecommerciallyavailable

modelingsoftwareandhardware,improvedfileformatconversionprocessesandportable

hardware,andhavebecomerelativelyinexpensive(Horowitz&Schultz,2014).Applicationsto

theeducationsettingleadssometoconsiderhowrapid3Dprototypingindesigneducation

couldbeleveragedtoimprovestudentspatialvisualizationskillsets(Parketal.,2011).

Modelingand3Dprintingrequiresupervisionalongwithtraining,butsupervisioncouldbe

supportedthroughon-demandlibrariesoroutreachcenters(Horowitz&Schultz,2014).

TeacherPerceptionson2Dand3DLearningTechnologies

PrainandWaldrip(2006)highlightedthemanybarriersfacingteachersattemptingto

integrate2Dand3Dlearningtechnologiesintoascienceclassroom.Theexploratorycasestudy

identifiedweaknessesinteachers’abilitytoevaluatestudentreactionstodifferentmodes,in

whichcompletionofamodelingactivitylackedtrueconnectiontolearning(Prain&Waldrip,

2006).DaughertyandCuster’s(2012)studyinvestigatingteacherperceptionsinsecondary

engineeringprofessionaldevelopmentsuggeststhatteachersperceivealackofresources,low

importancefromschoolorganization,anxietyinregardstocomfortlevel,andalackof

motivationtoparticipatein2Dand3Dprofessionaldevelopment.Researchfurtherhighlights

“problematicissuesforresearchersandcurriculumdevelopersinregardtodifferent

interpretationsofSTEMeducationandSTEMintegrationapproaches”(English,2016,p.2).

21

FutureResearchTrends

AstudypublishedbyNadelsonetal.(2012)foundaneedfordeeperexaminationof

comfort,inquiry,andpedagogicaldiscontentment,particularlyforinstructorswhoteachSTEM.

TheTechnology-AssistedScience,Engineering,andMathematics(TASEM)summerSTEM

programofferedthroughMichiganStateUniversityhasafour-year-longhistorywithexploring

perceptions,providingworkshopsforkindergartenstudentstoK-12teachers(Varneyet.al,

2012).Researchconductedthroughthisprogramfoundtheattitudesofstudentswho

participatedinTASEMimprovedalongwithaveragesinmath,science,andcitizenshipwith

participantsrangingacrosssocioeconomicandculturalbackgrounds(Varneyet.al.,2012).

TASEMoutcomessuggestthatthereisaneedtoprovidesimilarprogramsremotely,which

wouldbuildastrongercommunityandsupportnetworkbetweenK-12teachers,university

postsecondaryfaculty,andK-12studentpopulations(Varneyet.al.,2012).Despiteallofthe

interestsurroundingSTEMintegration,littletonoresearchexistsexploringMakerspace

contentandprocessesoflearning(Sheridanetal.,2014).

AnewapproachtoprofessionaldevelopmentexploringMakerspaceslaunchedbythe

UniversityofNevadain2016employedamobileMakerspace(Purpur,Radniecki,Colegrove,&

Klenke,2016).Thepop-upmobileMakerspaceresearchoutcomesreportedanincreasein

STEMenthusiasmandengagementforexperimentingwithnewformsoftechnology(Purpur,

Radniecki,Colegrove,&Klenke,2016).Participantswereexposedtothreeoutreachevents,

eachoccurringforaroundahalfanhour,inwhichparticipantswereintroducedto3Dprinting,

digitaldesignliteracies,andlendabletechnologies(Purpuret.al.,2016).Thisstudywillattempt

toaddresstheneedforresearchexploringSTEMprofessionaldevelopmentinMakerspace

22

environments.Additionalinsightexploringteacherperceptionsabout2Dand3Dtechnology

andconfidencelevelstowardtechnologieshighlighttheneedforthisdissertationstudy.

23

CHAPTER3

RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY

Introduction

AreviewofliteraturerevealsweaknessesinSTEMprofessionaldevelopmentprograms

(Nadelsonetal.,2012).TeachersdoplayacriticalroleinregardstostudentSTEMperceptions

andSTEMcareerinterests(Knezeket.al.,2011).Professionaldevelopmentprogramsfailto

includeafocusonscientificknowledgeandpedagogicalexperiences,andproduceteachers

whooftenhavelimitedconfidenceregardingSTEMskillsets(Murphy&Mancini-Samuelson,

2012).Fewteachersengageinprofessionaldevelopmentactivitiestoimprovescientific

teachingafterreceivingdegrees(Cotabishetal.,2011).

LimitedresearchexistsexaminingSTEMknowledgebase,STEMskillsets,and

experiencesnecessaryforteacherstoimplementSTEMintegratedinstruction.STEM

professionaldevelopmentresearchbythei-STEMsummerinstituteconfirmsthata

communityMakerspaceisaneffectivecomponentinprofessionaldevelopment(Nadelsonet

al.,2012).ThisfindingappearstobesupportedbyadditionalresearchproducedbyNASA

andCaliforniaStateUniversitySystem’sSTEMK-12professionaldevelopment’sIndependent

CollaborativeModel,whichcenteredonacommonthemeorNASAmission(Liddicoat,

2008).STEMprofessionaldevelopmentmodelsdeliveredviaSTEMoutreachwereequipped

withinstructionalactivities,freescienceandtechnologyresources,andlearningtechnology

equipmentcouldbeusedtoengageandpeakteacherinterest(Liddicoat,2008).

24

SampleandPopulation

ThisstudyincorporatedtheMakers’Guild,aseriesofSTEMandinstructionaltechnology

professionaldevelopmentactivities,overthecourseofthe2016springsemester.TheMakers’

GuildprogramtargetedsixschoolsfromalargenorthTexaspublicschooldistrictencompassing

fivecitiesandservingover25,000students.TheMakers’Guildincludedasamplepopulationof

57elementaryandmiddleschoolclassroomteachers,campusprincipals,academiccoaches,

andlibrarians.Participatingschoolsrepresentedavarietyofeducationsettings.Districtleaders

selectedthreeelementaryandthreemiddleschoolcampusesthatweresimilarinpopulation

size.Oneelementaryandonemiddleschoolwasselectedtorepresentoneofthreesocio-

economicincomebrackets,withoneclusterrepresentinglowincomestudentsofwhom67%or

moreidentifiedaseconomicallydisadvantaged(TexasEducationAgency,2015).Thesecond

clusterincludedoneelementaryandonemiddleschoolthatservesmiddleincomestudents,

with34%identifiedaseconomicallydisadvantaged(TexasEducationAgency,2015).Thelast

clusterrepresentedoneelementaryandonemiddleschoolthatservehigherincomestudents,

with24%identifiedaseconomicallydisadvantaged(TexasEducationAgency,2015).The

researcherworkedwithdistrictleadershiptoselectoneelementaryandonemiddleschoolthat

fedintoeachofthethreehighschoolsservingthislargepublicschooldistrictduringthefallof

2015.Participantswerepreselectedbythecampusprincipal.Campusleadership,aspartofthe

program,identifiedacampusleader,Makerspacefacilitator,andeightcontentteachersto

participateintheMakers’Guildprogram.AllparticipantswerenewtoMakerspace

environments,withonlyoneofthesixparticipatingschoolshousingacampusMakerspace,

whichopenedinthefallof2015.

25

ItisrecognizedthatsomeparticipatingteachersmayhavebeenexposedtoSTEMtopics

duringprevioustraining.Tominimizetheidentifiedlimitation,participantscompletingprevious

trainingwereidentifiedatthebeginningofthestudyandnotedduringanalysisandresults.

Teachersrepresentedvariousgradelevelsservingkindergartentoeighthgrade,representedall

corecurriculumareas,andincludedpopulationsfromawiderangeofenvironments.Itis

understoodthatthisstatisticallynon-randomsampleisnotrepresentedofthenation,butit

doesprovideinsightandreflectsalargedemographicscope.Participantselectedtoenterthe

researchstudy;therefore,resultsareonlygeneralizabletothisstudy’sparticipants.

ResearchQuestions

Threeresearchquestionswereexploredaspartofthisresearchstudy.Eachislistedand

discussed,alongwiththeassociatedhypotheses.

ResearchQuestion1:TowhatextentdoeducatorswhoparticipateinSTEM

Makerspaceprofessionaldevelopmentactivitiesincreasetheirself-appraisalof

competenceintechnologyintegrationabilities?

Accordingtoliterature,researchisneededinvestigatingaconstructionismframework

comparingdifferentknowledgelevelstolearningmotivationinregardtolearningtechnologies

(Lietal.,2013).Christensen(2002)suggestthatteachersadvanceinregardtotechnology

integrationasattitudestowardtechnologyimprove.

H1:Afterparticipationinasemester-longseriesofprofessionaldevelopmentactivities,

teacherperceptionstotheirabilitytointegratetechnologywillincreaseasmeasuredby

theStagesofAdoptionofTechnology.

26

Teacherconfidencehasbeenshowntobeaprimaryfactorineffectiveuseof

technologybystudentstoassistinlearning(Christensen,2002).Theabilitytosuccessfully

integratetechnologycreativelyoccursinpartduetotheteacher’swillingnessto“playwith

technologiesandanopennesstobuildingnewexperiencesforstudentstohavefuninwhich

learningisviewedasplay”(Mishra&Koehler,2006,p.18).Forthisreason,thefollowing

researchquestionwasexplored.


Makerspaceprofessionaldevelopmentactivitiesincreaseintheirconfidencein

integratingnewinformationtechnologyintopedagogicalpractice?

Makerspaceenvironmentsprovideaninformalplaygroundinwhichparticipants

exploreandcreateaproductioninart,science,andengineeringblendingdigitalandphysical

technologiestoexploreideasandlearnattheirownpace(Sheridanetal.,2014,p.505).

Makerspaceactivitiesbreakdownprocessandproduct-orientedpracticesbuildingconfidence

towardintegratingscientificandtechnicaltools(Bevan,Gutwill,Petrich,&Wilkinson,2015).

Makerspaceenvironmentsallowteacherstoexplore2Dand3Dfabricationtechnologiesinan

engagingformat(Sheridanetal.,2014,p.505)..


teacherconfidencelevelsintheirabilitytointegratetechnologywillincreaseas

measuredbytheTechnologyProficiencySelf-Assessmentfor21stCenturyLearning.

EnhancingthequalityofK-12STEMprofessionaldevelopmentisstronglylinkedtothe

qualityofSTEMeducationexperiences,whichcanpromoteanincreaseinSTEMcareerinterest

(Nadelsonetal.,2012).Wang,Moore,Roehrig,andPark’s(2011)findingssuggestthatteachers

27

begintoactuallyintegrateSTEMinthemannertheyfeelmostcomfortable,whichishighly

correlatedtotheirattitudestowardSTEM.Forthisreason,thefollowingresearchquestionwas

explored.


Makerspaceprofessionaldevelopmentactivitiesbecomemorepositiveintheir

attitudestowardSTEM?

Makerspacesintroduceanexploratoryplaygroundinwhichparticipantscanimprove

STEMliteracy,providingtheopportunitytointroduceSTEMconceptsthatmayimproveSTEM

perceptionsandconfidencelevels(Bevanet.al,2015).Thisdissertationstudyaimstoprovide

insightintotherelationshipofprofessionaldevelopmentonteacherconfidencelevelsand

attitudestowardSTEM,withtheexpectationthatconfidencelevelsandattitudeswillincrease

asaresultofprofessionaldevelopment.


teacherattitudestowardSTEMwillincreasebasedonresultsidentifiedthroughthe

STEMSemanticsSurveyinstrument.

ResearchDesign

Theresearcherdevelopedaquantitativestudydesignthatinvestigatedtherelationship

betweenprofessionaldevelopmentandteacher’sattitudesandconfidencelevelstoward

technologyintegrationandattitudestowardsSTEM.

Participantstookpartinprofessionaldevelopmentactivitiesoverthecourseofa

semesterbeginninginJanuary2016andconcludinginMay2016.Additionalsupportwas

plannedduringthesummerof2016,withtheexpectationthatteacherswouldltransfer

28

learningtotheirclassroomsthefollowingyear.Learningactivitiesincludedcurriculumcontent

connectionstoincludescience,math,andthearts.Teacherswereintroducedtoaseriesof

professionaldevelopmenttrainingexperiencesinSTEAMactivitiesintegrating2Dand3D

technologiesdeliveredinface-to-facetrainingopportunitiesandoneonlinetrainingsession.

Courseactivitiesintegratedprograming,draftingprograms,digitalart,digitalmedia,social

media,andcreationtoolswithalibraryMakerspaceprogramtargetingelementaryandmiddle

schoolcorecontentareas.Activitiesincorporatedhands-onconstructionistapproachesto

themesgearedtoreadingprogramsemployedbyallcorecontentareas.Theresearcher

partneredwiththepubliclibraryMakerspacecommunityandmetattheMakerspot,which

servedastheprimarylocationforprofessionaldevelopment.Thepubliclibrary’sMakerspace

community,alongwithdistrictlibrariansdeliveredmuchoftheprofessionaldevelopmentover

thecourseoffourmonths.

ThepurposeoftheMakers’GuildprogramwastointroduceparticipantstoMakerspace

environments,Makerspacedesign,constructionism,project-basedlearning,connecting

Makerspaceactivitiestocontentareas,andexposeparticipantsto3Dtechnologies,2D

technologies,mediaarts,virtuallearningenvironments,andSTEM.Participatingschoolswere

awardedMakerspaceequipmentthroughaNASAgrantaspartoftheresearchstudytobe

designedduringprofessionaldevelopmentactivitiesandopentostudentsduringthefallof

2016.Threeface-to-facetrainingsessionswereheld,alongwithoneonlinetrainingmodule

deliveredwithinCanvas(aLearningManagementSystem),alongwithsitevisitstofacilitate

additionalsupporttoeachparticipatingschool.Theonlineproject-basedCanvascourse,which

isrepresentedinFigure2below,facilitatedcommunitydiscussions,providedresources,and

29

willcontinuetoserveasacommunityrepositorytoexchangeMakerspaceproject-based

learningactivities.

Figure2.Onlineproject-basedcanvascourse.

30

Participantsexperiencedhands-onapproachestotinkeringandmakingatthepublic

library’sMakerspot.Trainingdescriptionsarelistedandeachtrainingobjectivecanalsobe

locatedintheAppendixA.Trainingsessionswereofferedintheorderlisted.

● BuildingMakerspaceexperiences

§ AnintroductiontoMakerspaceK-12environments

§ TypesofMakerspaceenvironments

§ ConsiderationsforK-12publicschoolMakerspaceexperiences

§ Gainingcommunityandacademicbuy-in

§ IntegratingMakerspaceinyourcurriculum

● Designthinking

§ Whatisdesignthinking?

§ Whatdoesafuturisticschoollooklike?

§ Defininganddesigningyourschool’screativespace

§ Sustainabilityconsiderations

§ Creatingadesignchallenge

● Learningin3D

§ Virtualrepresentationsin3Denvironments(introductiontoTinkercad,Google

Sketchup,Minecraft,fabricationprintingprograms)

§ Augmentedreality

§ Virtualreality

§ Robotics

§ 3Dlearningtechnologiesandcognitivescience

31

§ 3Dlearningtechnologyresources

§ Origami

● Project-basedlearning(PBL)and21stcenturylearning

§ IntroductiontoPBL

§ ConnectionstoPBLand21stcenturylearningskillsets

§ FramingshortPBLactivities

§ DesigningPBLforschoolMakerspaceenvironments

ParticipantswereintroducedtotheconceptofMakerspaceworkstationstofacilitate

STEMcareerawarenessthroughproject-basedlearningactivities.Challengecardsconnecting

contentcurriculumtoMakerspaceenvironmentswereintroduced.Theresearchercollaborated

withdistrictcurriculumanddigitallearningleaderstocreateaMakerspaceproject-based

learningprocess,whichwasintroducedtoMakers’Guildparticipants.TheMakerspaceproject-

basedlearningprocessisillustratedinFigure3.Curriculumleaderscollaboratedwiththe

researchertodevelopchallengecardstobeplacedinoneoffourstationsthatconnectedto

curriculumcontentareas.Thechallengecardsincludedaresearchelementtostressthe

importanceofmedialiteracy.Educatorswereprovidedchallengecardexamplesintheonline

courseandchallengecardswereplannedtobeincorporatedwithstudentsinthefallof2016.

32

Figure3.Makerspaceproject-basedlearningworkstationprocess.

SchoolpersonnelwhoparticipatedinthisresearchprojectdesignedaMakerspace

environmenttousewithstudentsandreceivedgreenscreenequipment,3Dprinters,2D

printers,robotickits,andMakerspacesuppliesinJune2016.Thisequipmentwillbeusedwith

studentsduringthefallof2016tofacilitateworkstationsthatincorporateavarietyof

MakerspaceapproachesuniquetoeachcampustoincludeGeniusHour,Makerspaceclassroom

activities,andmobileMakerspaceenvironments.Geniushourisanhourinwhichstudents

exploreatopicforanentireyear,research,andmakeanartifacttosharewithawider

community.StudentsreflectongoalsandtheproblemsolvingprocessaspartoftheirGenius

Hourexperience.OtherapproacheswilltieMakerspaceactivitiesdirectlytocurriculumvia

Challengecards(AppendixB)usingtheMakerspaceProject-basedLearningWorkstation

33

Process.Aspartofthetrainingexperience,participantswereintroducedtohowtocreate

challengecardsandconnectMakerspaceactivitiestocurriculumcontent.Theworkstation

modelincorporatingproject-basedlearningemploysavarietyofvisualarttechnologytoolsto

includegreenscreentechnology,fabricationtechnology,androbotics.Schoolsparticipatingin

thestudywereawardedagreenscreentechnology,fabricationtechnology,orroboticspackage

inthesummerof2016.

Instrumentation

Areviewofliteratureidentifiedappropriateinstrumentsalongwithfiscalfeasibilityof

instrumentationappropriatetotheproposedstudy.Threeinstrumentspreviouslyusedin

similarstudieswereselectedtoimproveinternalreliabilityandvalidityofthestudy.

TheSTEMSemanticsSurveyorSSS(Tyler-Wood,Knezek,&Christensen,2010)was

selectedasitwassuccessfullyusedtomeasureteacherandstudentattitudestowardSTEMin

theMiddleSchoolersSavetheWorld(MSOSW)program,whichwasfundedbytheNational

ScienceFoundation’sInnovativeTechnologyExperiencesforStudentsandTeachers(ITEST)

Program.TheSTEMSemanticsSurveyisaresultofpreviousmodificationsfromKnezekand

Christensen’s(1998)Teachers’AttitudesTowardsInformationTechnologyquestionnaire(TAT),

whichemployed“SemanticdifferentialadjectivepairsderivedfromOsgood’sevaluation

dimension”(Knezeketal.,2011,p.94).Targetedstatementsproducingfivescalesrepresents

perceptionsofscience,math,engineering,technology,andSTEMcareersareprovidedto

participantsalongwithsevenchoices.Internalconsistencyreliabilityratingsforallscalesarein

therangeof“verygoodtoexcellent,”accordingtoDeVellis’(1991)standards,rangingfrom.78

to.94acrossfiveconstructsforbaselinedata(Knezeketal.,2011).

34

AnupdatedversionoftheTPSA,theTechnologyProficiencySelf-Assessmentfor21st

CenturyLearning(TPSAC-21),firstdevelopedbyRopp(1999)andrecentlyimprovedtoexplore

21stcenturylearningtechnologiesbyChristensenandKnezek(2015)wasemployedtomeasure

theeffectprofessionaldevelopmenthadonteachers’attitudesandconfidencelevelstowards

technologyintegration.TheTechnologyProficiencySelf-Assessment(TPSA)wasincorporated

tomeasurepreserviceprogramstechnologyskillsandstrategiesbyChristensen,Parker,&

Knezek’s(2005)duringafour-yearstudyoftechnologyintegrationteacherpreservicemethods

course.GainspretopostwereonconfidencelevelsasmeasuredbytheTPSAwereidentified

foremailskillsandteachingwithtechnology(Chrisensen,Parker,&Knezek,2005).As

mentionedpreviously,theTPSAwasemployedbyalargeteacherpopulationinTexasand

MexicoinapreviousstudyconductedbyMoralesetal.(2008)toinvestigateself-efficacyin

regardtotechnologyintegration.TheTPSAincludeda20-item,Likertquestionnairewithfour

subscales,inwhichparticipantsself-assesstheirlevelofconfidenceintheircompetencein

usingtechnology.TheresearcherwasgivenpermissiontoemployChristensenandKnezek’s

(2015a)updatedversionoftheTPSA,TPSA21stCentury(TPSAC21),toutilizeinthis

dissertationstudy.ChristensenandKnezek’s(2015a)updatedTPSAC21Likertquestionnaire

onsixfactors:(a)E-Mail,(b)WorldWideWeb,(c)IntegratedApplications,(d)Teachingwith

Technology,(e)EmergingTechnologiesforStudentLearning,and(f)EmergingTechnologiesfor

TeacherProfessionalDevelopment.

Finally,theStagesofAdoptionofTechnologyinstrument(Christensen,1997)wasused

toinvestigatethelevelofteachers’attitudestowardteachingwithtechnologyoveraperiodof

time.TheStagesofAdoptionwasadaptedfromRussell’s(1995)

35

researchexploringhowadultsutilizednewtechnologiesandincludessixstages:(a)awareness,

(b)learningtheprocess,(c)understandingtheapplicationoftheprocess,(d)familiarityand

confidence,(e)adaptationtoothercontexts,and(f)creativeapplicationstonewcontexts.The

StagesofAdoptioninstrumentisasingle-itemsurvey,preventinginternalconsistencyreliability

measurement.However,itisaveryefficientsurveyinstrumentandwaspreviouslyshowntobe

usefulinmeasuringtheeffectivenessofprofessionaldevelopment,with“test-retestreliability

estimatesgenerallyreportedintherangeof.91to.96forelementaryandsecondary

populations”(Christensen,Parker,&Knezek,2005,p.189;Christensen&Knezek,2002;

Christensen&Knezek,1999).Forthisreason,theinstrumentwasemployedtomeasurethe

effectprofessionaldevelopmenthasonparticipatingteachers’overalltechnologyintegration

abilities.Participatingdistrictsareabletoutilizethisinformationtobetterunderstandgeneral

stagesoftechnologyadoptionamongparticipatingeducators.

DataCollection

Participantswereadministeredapre-andposttesttoincludethequantitative

instrumentsmentionedabove.PretestswereissuedbypaperatthepubliclibraryinJanuaryof

2016atthebeginningofthefirstface-to-facemeeting.Posttestswereissuedbypaperatthe

lastface-to-facetraininginMay2016.Follow-upphonecallsandsitevisitswereconductedif

participantsfailedtorespond.Surveyswereoriginallyplannedtobedistributedelectronically,

reducingcost,improvingefficiency,andimprovingtheoverallsecurityofdatacollection.

However,theresearcherencounteredconnectivityissuesatthepubliclibrary.Asaresult,

pretestsandposttestweredeliveredviapapercopy.Responseswereenteredintoa

spreadsheetandimportedintoSPSSsoftware.Thelastface-to-faceprofessionaldevelopment

36

meetingallowedparticipantstoreflectviashortanswerhowthisprofessionaldevelopment

experiencemightchangetheirteachingpractices.Reflectionsprovidedfurtherknowledgeasto

howinstructionalactivitiesaffectedteacherattitudestowardsSTEMandconfidencelevels

towardintegratinginstructionaltechnology.

HumanSubjectProtection

Surveysemployedinthisstudycontaineddemographicquestions,questionsregarding

theuseoftechnology,attitudestowardinformationtechnology,confidencelevelstoward

informationtechnology,andattitudestowardSTEM.Surveysweredistributedface-to-faceand

tookapproximately10minutestocomplete.Informationgatheredandtheevaluationofthis

dataassistedinidentifyingrelationshipsbetweenlevelsoftechnologyintegrationandcontent

areas,aswellasindividualtraits.

Therewerenoforeseeableriskstocompletingsurveys.Participantswereadultsand

werefreetowithdrawconsentandceaseparticipationintheresearchstudyatanytime,

withoutpenalty.Ifunforeseencircumstanceshadoccurred,aparticipant’sinclusioncouldhave

beenterminatedbytheinvestigator.Allresponsestosurveyswerekeptinasecurearea.Only

researchershadaccesstothisdataviaasecurepassword.

ParticipantsutilizedtheiremployeeIDnumberasaprimarykeyfordata.Allprecautions

weretakentoensuresecurityoftheresponses.Participantsweregroupedandalsoidentified

byacampusnumberintheunlikelyeventofduplicatekeys.Apossibilitydoesexistthatdata

collectedduringthecurrentresearchstudycouldbeusedforadditionalresearchbeyondthe

initialstudy.SuchastudywouldonlyoccurwithapprovalfromtheUniversityofNorthTexas

37

InstitutionalReviewBoard.Theboardwillexamineanyrequestforfurtherresearchandwould

requireabsolutecontrolofsecurityandconfidentialityofdata.

38

CHAPTER4

PRESENTATIONOFDATA

Introduction

ThisstudyexaminedhowparticipationinaMakerspaceprofessionaldevelopment

experienceaffectsparticipants’technologyintegrationabilities,theirconfidencelevelstoward

theuseoftechnology,andtheirattitudestowardSTEMandtechnologyintegrationoverthe

courseofthe2016springsemester.Thefollowingresearchquestionswereanalyzed.

ResearchQuestion1

TowhatextentdoteacherswhoparticipateinSTEMMakerspaceprofessional

developmentactivitiesincreasetheirself-appraisalofcompetenceintechnology

integrationabilities?

ResearchQuestion2


developmentactivitiesincreaseintheirconfidenceinintegratingnew

informationtechnologyintopedagogicalpractice?

ResearchQuestion3


developmentactivitiesbecomemorepositiveintheirattitudestowardSTEM?

DescriptionofSubjects

Atotalof59educatorsparticipatedintheresearchstudy,with59completingthe

pretestand52completingtheposttestsurveys.Eachparticipantidentifiedwithoneofsix

schoolsusingacampusIDnumber,whichisrepresentedinTable1.Oneelementaryandone

39

middleschoolwereselectedbyschoolleadersfromeachofthreesocioeconomicclusters—low,

medium,orhighsocioeconomicstatus–sothatforbothmiddleschoolandelementaryschool

level,therewasrepresentationfromeachofthreesocioeconomiclevels.Leadersselected

schoolssimilarinpopulationsizeandforconvenience.Outof59subjects,51(86.4%)were

identifiedasfemalesandeight(13.6%)asmales.

Table1

Participating Campuses by Socioeconomic Cluster

CampusID/IncomeLevel Frequency Percent Valid

PercentCumulativePercent

44:MiddleLowIncome 10 16.9 16.9 16.9

46:MiddleHighIncome 12 20.3 20.3 37.3

47:MiddleMiddleIncome 9 15.3 15.3 52.5

118:ElementaryMiddleIncome 9 15.3 15.3 67.8

119:ElementaryLowIncome 10 16.9 16.9 84.7

121:ElementaryHighIncome 9 15.3 15.3 100.0

Total 59 100.0 100.0

Elevenparticipantsidentifiedthemselvesascampusleaders,definedaseitheracampus

principaloracademiccoach,whichisaninstructionalleaderassignedtoeachcampus.The

remaining48participantsidentifiedthemselvesasclassroomteachers,withfiveofthe

classroomteachersservingaslibrarians.Outof59participants,19%ofparticipantsservedin

sometypeofleadershiprole(Table2).

40

Table2

Subject Occupation

Frequency Percent ValidPercent CumulativePercent

Leaders 11 18.6 18.6 18.6Teachers 48 81.4 81.4 100.0

Total 59 100.0 100.0

ResearchQuestion1

ResearchQuestion1asked,“TowhatextentdoeducatorswhoparticipateinSTEM

Makerspaceprofessionaldevelopmentactivitiesincreaseintheirself-appraisalofcompetence

intechnologyintegration?”Theresearchhypothesisstated,“Afterparticipationinasemester-

longseriesofprofessionaldevelopmentactivities,teacherperceptionsoftheirabilityto

integratetechnologywillincreaseasmeasuredbyStagesofAdoptionofTechnology.”

EducatorswereadministeredtheStagesofAdoptionquestionnaire,whichplacedeach

inoneofsixstages,priortoreceivingtraininginJanuary2016andagainattheconclusionof

traininginApril2016.Outofthe52subjectswhocompletedboththepre-andposttestStages

ofAdoptionofTechnologysurvey,12movedupatleastonecategory,33stayedthesame,and

sixmoveddownatleastonecategory.Twentyparticipantsmarkedthehighestcategorywhen

completingthepre-testStagesofAdoptionquestionnaire,selectingthe“CreativeApplications

toNewContexts”stage.

Themeanscores,standarddeviations,andnumberofallparticipantsarereflectedin

Figures4and5,withtheJanuarypretestadministrationmeanof5.25andtheposttest

41

administrationmeanat5.48.Hypothesis1wastestedusingapairedt-testcomparingpretestto

posttestStagesofAdoptionquestionnairescore.Nosignificantdifferences(p<.05)were

found.Ananalysisofvariance(ANOVA)forgenderfoundnostatistically(p<.05)significant

differencebetweenmaleandfemaleresponses.Cohen’sdforpretopostscoresyieldedasmall

effectwiththechangeinStagesofAdoptionpretoposttestresultsnotfoundtobesignificant

(p<.05).Resultsdepictinganincreaseinthemeanfrompretopostforallrespondentsare

reflectedinTable3andTable4.

Aone-wayanalysisofvariance(ANOVA)indicatednosignificantdifferences(p<.05)with

regardtoeducators’stageofadoptionbasedoncampussocioeconomicstatus.Asshownin

Tables5and6,astatisticallysignificant(p<.05)increaseinattitudeswasnotedforfemale

teachers,withaneffectsizeof.338pretopostindicatingasmalltomoderateeffect(Cohen,

1988)andeducationallymeaningfulaccordingtocommonlyacceptedguidelines(Bialoand

Sivin-Kachala,1996).Thepre-postgainbasedontheone-tailedt-testreportedinTable6was

foundtobestatisticallysignificant(p<.05).Therefore,theresearcherconcludedthegainwas

notduetochance.Theoveralltrendindicatesthatfemaleteachersimprovedpretopost.

Tables7and8illustratethatleaders(N=11)reportedahigherlevelofcompetenceinreported

StagesofAdoptionduringthepretestadministration,whichwasfoundtobestatistically

significantcomparedtoteachers(p<.05).Therewerenosignificantdifferenceswithregardto

occupationandlevelofadoptionoftechnologyforposttestadministration.

42

Figure4.StagesofAdoptionJanuarypretestquestionnaireresultsforEducators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities.

Figure5.StagesofAdoptionAprilposttestquestionnaireresultsforEducators Participating in Makers’ Guild Professional Development Activities.

43

Table3

DescriptiveStatisticsforPre-PostStagesofAdoptionforAllRespondentsParticipatingin

Makers’GuildProfessionalDevelopmentActivities

N Mean Std.Deviation

Pre_StageofAdoption 52 5.37 .715

StageofAdoption 52 5.48 .671

Table4

Pairedt-TestResultsforPre-PostStagesofAdoptionforallRespondentsParticipatingin


MeanStandardDeviation

StandardErroroftheMean t df

Sig.(1-tailed)

StageofAdoptiontoPostStageofAdoption .115 .732 .101 -1.137 51 .1305

Table5

StagesofAdoptionforFemaleTeachersParticipatinginMakers’GuildProfessional

DevelopmentActivities,Pre-Post.

N Mean StandardDeviation

PreStagesofAdoption 33 5.15 .712

PostStagesofAdoption 33 5.39 .704

44

Table6

Paired t-TestResultsforPre-PostStagesofAdoptionforFemaleTeachersParticipatingin


N Mean StandardDeviation T df 1-Tailed

Sig.EffectSize

Pre-PostStagesofAdoption-

33 .242 .751 1.854 32 .036 .338

FemaleTeachers

45

Table7

DescriptiveStatisticsforStagesofAdoptionforThreeGroupsofEducatorsParticipatingin


Table8

Pairedt-TestResultsforPre-PostStagesofAdoptionforEducatorsParticipatinginMakers’

GuildProfessionalDevelopmentActivities,AllOccupationsCombined

SumofSquares df MeanSquare F Sig.

PretestStageofAdoption BetweenGroups 4.300 1 4.300 5.995 .017WithinGroups 40.886 57 .717Total 45.186 58

PostStageofAdoption BetweenGroups .338 1 .338 .746 .392WithinGroups 22.643 50 .453Total 22.981 51


PretestStageofAdoption Leaders 11 5.82 .405Teachers 48 5.13 .914Total 59 5.25 .883

PostStageofAdoption Leaders 11 5.64 .674Teachers 41 5.44 .673Total 52 5.48 .671

46

ResearchQuestion2


Makerspaceprofessionaldevelopmentactivitiesincreaseintheirconfidenceinintegratingnew

informationtechnologyintopedagogicalpractice?”Theresearchhypothesisstated,“After

participationinasemester-longseriesofprofessionaldevelopmentactivities,teacher

confidencelevelsintheirabilitytointegratetechnologywillincreaseasmeasuredbythe

TechnologyProficiencySelf-Assessmentfor21stCenturyLearning.”

TheresearcheremployedaversionoftheTechnologyProficiencySelf-Assessmentfor

21stCenturyLearningthatmeasuressixfactors:(F1)Email,(F2)WorldWideWeb,(F3)

IntegratedApplications,(F4)TeachingwithTechnology,(F5)EmergingTechnologiesforStudent

Learning,and(F6)EmergingTechnologiesforTeacherProfessionalDevelopment.However,the

fourthfactor,TeachingwithTechnology,producedalowreliabilityestimatebecausethe

versionadministeredincludedonlytwoofthefiveitemsnormallyusedforFactor4.Internal

consistencyreliabilitiesforthesixscalesrangedfrom.954to.592,considered“verygoodto

poor”accordingtoguidelinesprovidedbyDeVellis(1991)with.592representingfactorfour.

Hypothesis2wastestedusingapairedsamplet-test.Table9depictstheTechnology

ProficiencySelf-Assessmentfor21stCenturyLearningJanuarypretestandAprilposttestmeans,

numberofresponses,andstandarddeviations.Resultsindicateapositivegroupmeanincrease

inallfactorsinvestigated,suggestingpositiveimprovementinregardtoeducators’confidence

levels.Thelikelihoodofallsixmeasuresexhibitingpositivechangesfrompretopostsimplyby

chancewouldbep=.0156usingGraphPadPrismversion6.00forWindows,GraphPad

Software,LaJollaCaliforniaUSA,www.graphpad.com.

47

Table9

DescriptiveStatisticsforTPSAC-21Pre-PostScoresforAllRespondentsParticipatinginMakers’

GuildProfessionalDevelopmentActivities

Mean N StandardDeviation

StandardErroroftheMean

Pair1 TPSAEmailPretest 4.8231 52 .25867 .03587

TPSAEmailPosttest 4.9000 52 .22229 .03083

Pair2 TPSAWWWPretest 4.6731 52 .38812 .05382

TPSAWWWPosttest 4.7404 52 .27954 .03876

Pair3 TPSAIntegratedAppPretest 4.4260 52 .65301 .09056

TPSAIntegratedAppPosttest 4.5346 52 .66003 .09153

Pair4 TPSATeachingwithTechnologyPretest 4.3558 52 .68124 .09447

TPSATeachingwithTechnologyPosttest 4.5000 52 .71401 .09901

Pair5 TPSAStudentLearningPretest 4.1275 51 .98789 .13833

TPSAStudentLearningPosttest 4.4492 51 .64076 .08972

Pair6TPSATeacherPDPretest 4.6830 51 .44379 .06214

TPSATeacherPDPosttest 4.7895 51 .36052 .05048

Table10illustratesTPSAC-21’spairedsamplet-testresultsforallrespondents.No

significant(p<.05)individualscalepretopostgainswereidentifiedforfouroutofthesix

factors:(F2)WorldWideWeb,(F3)IntegratedApplications,(F4)TeachingwithTechnology,and

(F6)EmergingTechnologiesforTeacherProfessionalDevelopment.HoweverFactor1,Email

Skills,Factor5,EmergingTechnologiesforStudentLearning,andFactor6,TeacherProfessional

Development,werefoundtohaveexhibitedstatistically(p<.05)significantgains.Educators

weremoreconfidentintheirtechnologyproficienciesintheareasofEmailSkillsandusing

48

EmergingTechnologiesforStudentLearningattheendofMakers’GuildProfessional

DevelopmentActivitiesthanatthebeginning.

Table10

PairedSamplePre-Postt-TestResultsforTPSAC-21ScalesforAllRespondentsParticipatingin


N Correlation df Sig.(1-tailed)

EffectSize

Pair1TPSAEmailPretest&TPSAEmailPosttest 52 .286 51 .030

.317

Pair2TPSAWWWPretest&TPSAWWWPosttest 52 .373 51 .106

.199

Pair3

TPSAIntegratedAppPretest&TPSAIntegratedAppPosttest

52 .541 51 .109.165

Pair4

TPSATeachingwithTechPretest&TPSATeachingwithTechPosttest

52 .433 51 .084

.205

Pair5

TPSAStudentLearningPretest&TPSAStudentLearningPosttest

51 .473 50 .0065

.385

Pair6TPSATeacherPDPretest&TPSATeacherPDPosttest

51 .359 50 .0525.262

Tables11and12containfindingsregardingwhethereducatorsdifferedbefore

professionaldevelopmenttookplacewithrespecttoconfidenceintechnologyproficiencies

basedonoccupation.Analysisofvarianceconfirmedsignificant(p<.05)differencesbasedon

teacherorleaderoccupationforthreeofsixTPSAC-21scalesatthetimeofthepretestsurvey

administration:(F3)IntegratedApplications,(F5)EmergingTechnologiesforStudentLearning,

and(F6)EmergingTechnologiesforTeacherProfessionalDevelopment.Theself-appraisalby

49

educationalleaderswashigherthanforteachersforallthreescales.Leadersweremore

confidententeringtrainingthanteachersinthetechnologyproficienciesofintegrated

applications,emergingtechnologiesforstudentlearning,andemergingtechnologiesfor

teacherprofessionaldevelopmentatthebeginingoftheMakers’Guildprofessional

developmentprogram.

Tables13and14containsANOVAfindingsfortheoccupationsofteachersversus

leadersregardingTPSAC-21scalesatthetimeoftheposttest.Therewerenosignificant(p<

.05)differenceswithregardtooccupationforposttestadministrationonanyofthesixscales.

BasedonthegroupmeanaveragesinTable11–14,itappearsthattheself-appraisalsof

teachersandleaderswithrespecttotheirconfidenceintechnologyproficienciesbecamemore

closelyalignedbytheendoftheprofessionaldevelopmentactivities.

50

Table11

TPSAC-21PretestDescriptivesForTwoEducatorOccupationsParticipatinginMakers’Guild

ProfessionalDevelopmentActivities


TPSAEmail Leaders 11 4.8909 .18684Teachers 48 4.7760 .35250Total 59 4.7975 .32976

TPSAWWW Leaders 11 4.7455 .23817Teachers 48 4.5792 .54459Total 59 4.6102 .50436

TPSAIntegratedApp Leaders 11 4.8182 .20889Teachers 48 4.2615 .76271Total 59 4.3653 .72577

TPSATeachingwithTech

Leaders 11 4.6364 .59544Teachers 48 4.2083 .83687Total 59 4.2881 .81051

TPSAStudentLearning Leaders 11 4.6136 .60066Teachers 48 3.9115 1.10305Total 59 4.0424 1.06031

TPSATeacherPD Leaders 11 4.9545 .10778Teachers 48 4.5764 .56906Total 59 4.6469 .53524

51

Table12

ANOVAbyOccupationforTPSAC-21PretestResultsforEducatorsParticipatinginMakers’Guild


SumofSquares df Mean

Square F Sig. EffectSize

TPSAEmail BetweenGroups .118 1 .118 1.087 .301 .200

WithinGroups 6.189 57 .109Total 6.307 58

TPSAWWW BetweenGroups .247 1 .247 .972 .328 .194


TPSAIntegratedApp

BetweenGroups 2.774 1 2.774 5.692 .020 .446WithinGroups 27.778 57 .487Total 30.551 58

TPSATeachingwithTech

BetweenGroups 1.640 1 1.640 2.563 .115 .283


TPSAStudentLearning

BetweenGroups 4.412 1 4.412 4.137 .047 .632

WithinGroups 60.794 57 1.067Total 65.207 58

TPSATeacherPD BetweenGroups 1.280 1 1.280 4.756 .033 .419


52

Table13

TPSAC-21PosttestDescriptivesForTwolEducatorOccupationsParticipatinginMakers’Guild



TPSAEmailPosttest Leaders 11 4.9091 .30151Teachers 41 4.8976 .20061Total 52 4.9000 .22229

TPSAWWWPosttest Leaders 11 4.7273 .34955Teachers 41 4.7439 .26272Total 52 4.7404 .27954

TPSAIntegratedAppPosttest


TPSATeachingwithTechPosttest


TPSAStudentLearningPosttest


TPSATeacherPDPosttest Leaders 11 4.8333 .29814Teachers 40 4.7775 .37836Total 51 4.7895 .36052

53

Table14

ANOVAbyOccupationforTPSAC-21PosttestResultsForEducatorsParticipatinginMakers’



Square F Sig.EffectSize

TPSAEmailPosttest BetweenGroups .001 1 .001 .023 .880 .044WithinGroups 2.519 50 .050Total 2.520 51

TPSAWWWPosttest BetweenGroups .002 1 .002 .030 .863 -.054WithinGroups 3.983 50 .080Total 3.985 51

TPSAIntegratedAppPosttest

BetweenGroups .983 1 .983 2.314 .135 .606WithinGroups 21.235 50 .425Total 22.218 51

TPSATeachingwithTechPosttest

BetweenGroups .461 1 .461 .903 .347 .334WithinGroups 25.539 50 .511Total 26.000 51

TPSAStudentLearningPosttest

BetweenGroups .198 1 .198 .478 .492 .250WithinGroups 20.330 49 .415Total 20.529 50

TPSATeacherPDPosttest BetweenGroups .027 1 .027 .204 .654 .081


Resultsindicatingsocioeconomicimpactoneducatorconfidencelevelsarerepresented

inTables15,16,17,and18.Aone-wayANOVAwasconductedtoinvestigatewhether

confidencelevelsintechnologyproficiencydifferedbycampussocioeconomiclevel.Analyses

wereconductedforboththepretestandposttesttimesofsurveyadministration.Pretest

resultsregardingsocioeconomicstatusyieldednostatistically(p<.05)significantdifferences

foranyofthesixTPSAC-21scales.Posttestresultswerefoundtobestatisticallysignificant

(p<.05)fortwoofthesixTPSAC-21factors,F2WorldWideWebandF5Emerging

TechnologiesforStudentLearning.Allparticipants’confidencelevelsinWorldWideWeband

EmergingTechnologiesforStudentLearningdidincreaseattheendoftraining.

54

Table15

DescriptiveStatisticsforTPSAC-21PretestScoresbySocioeconomicLevelofSchoolfor

EducatorsParticipatinginMakers’GuildProfessionalDevelopmentActivities


TPSAF1EmailPretest LowIncome 20 4.9275 .12083

MiddleIncome 16 4.5688 .49054

HighIncome 23 4.8435 .23321

Total 59 4.7975 .32976TPSAF2WWWPretest Low

Income 20 4.8200 .26675


HighIncome 23 4.6087 .41111

Total 59 4.6102 .50436TPSAF3IntegratedAppPretest Low

Income 20 4.6000 .54290


HighIncome 23 4.4957 .60263

Total 59 4.3653 .72577TPSAF4TeachingwithTechPretest

LowIncome 20 4.6250 .53496


HighIncome 23 4.4348 .66237

Total 59 4.2881 .81051continues)

55

Table15(continued).


TPSAF5StudentLearningPretest

LowIncome 20 4.5563 .80854

MiddleIncome 16 3.3906 1.01023

HighIncome 23 4.0489 1.07446

Total 59 4.0424 1.06031TPSAF6TeacherPDPretest Low

Income 20 4.8000 .39589


HighIncome 23 4.7391 .43177

Total 59 4.6469 .53524

56

Table16

ANOVAbySocioeconomicLevelofEducator’sSchoolforTPSAC-21PretestScoresAmong

ParticipantsinMakers’GuildProfessionalDevelopmentActivities


(2tailed)

TPSAF1EmailPretest BetweenGroups 1.224 2 .612 6.741 .002WithinGroups 5.083 56 .091Total 6.307 58

TPSAF2WWWPretest BetweenGroups 1.964 2 .982 4.299 .018


TPSAF3IntegratedAppPretest

BetweenGroups 5.193 2 2.597 5.734 .005WithinGroups 25.358 56 .453Total 30.551 58

TPSAF4TeachingwithTechPretest


TPSAF5StudentLearningPretest


TPSAF6TeacherPDPretestBetweenGroups 2.344 2 1.172 4.598 .014


57

Table17

DescriptiveStatisticsforTPSAC-21PosttestScoresbySocioeconomicLevelofSchoolfor



TPSAF1EmailPosttest LowIncome 18 4.9556 .18856


HighIncome 21 4.8952 .23340

Total 52 4.9000 .22229

TPSAF2WWWPosttest LowIncome 18 4.8556 .25489


HighIncome 21 4.7286 .24319

Total 52 4.7404 .27954

TPSAF3IntegratedAppPosttest

LowIncome 18 4.7222 .42917


HighIncome 21 4.5333 .70805

Total 52 4.5346 .66003

TPSAF4TeachingwithTechPosttest

LowIncome 18 4.6944 .57238


HighIncome 21 4.4762 .69779

Total 52 4.5000 .71401

58

Table17(continued).


TPSAF5StudentLearningPosttest

LowIncome 17 4.7437 .36650


HighIncome 21 4.3801 .68113

Total 51 4.4492 .64076

TPSAF6TeacherPDPosttest

LowIncome 17 4.9510 .12862


HighIncome 21 4.7429 .37508

Total 51 4.7895 .36052

59

Table18

ANOVAbySocioeconomicLevelofSchoolforTPSAC-21PosttestScaleScoresAmongEducators

ParticipatinginMakers’GuildProfessionalDevelopmentActivities

SumofSquares df MeanSquare F Sig.(2

tailed)TPSAF1EmailPosttest

BetweenGroups .118 2 .059 1.207 .308WithinGroups 2.402 49 .049Total 2.520 51

TPSAF2WWWPosttest


TPSAF3IntegratedAppPosttest

BetweenGroups 1.497 2 .748 1.770 .181WithinGroups 20.721 49 .423Total 22.218 51

TPSAF4TeachingwithTechPosttest

BetweenGroups 1.385 2 .692 1.378 .262WithinGroups 24.615 49 .502Total 26.000 51

TPSAF5StudentLearningPosttest


TPSAF6TeacherPDPosttest


TPSAC-21AnalysesbyGender

Tables19,20,21,and22containfindingsbasedonexaminingwhetherornotdegreeof

confidenceintechnologyproficiencyvariedbasedonthegenderoftheMakerspacePD

participant.ExaminationofgainsinTPSAC-21teacherconfidencelevelswithbothgenders

combinedproducedsignificantfindingspretopost,withsignificant(p<.05)gainsinF1Email

Skills,F5,EmergingTechnologiesforStudentLearning,andF6TeacherPD.Aneffectsizeof.387

wascalculatedforEmail,.481forStudentLearning,and.393forTeacherPDpretopost.Effect

sizesofthesemagnitudesapproachamoderateeffectinmagnitude(Cohen,1988)andare

educationallymeaningful(ES>.3)accordingtocommonlyacceptedguidelines(BialoandSivin-

60

Kachala1996).Additionalanalysesinvestigatingteachersindicatedthatfemaleteachers

experiencedsignificant(p<.05)improvementsinconfidencelevelsinF1Email,F2WWW,F5

StudentLearningandF6TeacherPD.Pre-posteffectsizemagnitudesforfemalesweregreater

thanforthegroupofteachersoverall:F1EmailESforfemales=.425vs..387forteachers

overall;F2WWWESforfemales=.338vs..256forteachersoverall;F5StudentLearningESfor

females=.512vs..481forteachersoverall;andF6TeacherPDESforfemales=.406vs..393for

teachersoverall.Thistrendprovidesevidenceforthebroaderobservation/conclusiontobe

presentedbytheresearcherinchapter5,thatfemaleteachers’confidencelevelsespecially

increasedpretopost,duringtheMakerspacePDactivities.

61

Table19

DescriptiveStatisticsforTPSAC-21ScalesPre-PostforTeacherRespondentsParticipatingin

Makers’GuildProfessionalDevelopmentActivities.

Mean N Std.Deviation

F1TPSAEmail TPSAFactor1 4.8049 41 .27382

TPSAFactor1PostT 4.8976 41 .20061

F2TPSAWWW TPSAFactor2 4.6537 41 .41958


F3TPSAIntegrated

Apps

TPSAFactor3 4.3207 41 .69219


F4TPSATeachingwith

Tech

TPSAFactor4 4.2805 41 .68964


F5TPSAStudent

Learning

TPSAFactor5 3.9938 40 1.03618


F6TPSATeacherPD TPSAFactor6 4.6083 40 .47223


62

Table20

PairedSamplesPre-Postt-TestResultsforTPSAC-21ScalesforTeachersParticipatingin


Mean StandardDeviation t df Sig.

(1-tailed)

EffectSize

Pair1TPSAEmailPretest&TPSAEmailPosttest

.09268 .27963 2.122 40 .020 .387

Pair2TPSAWWWPretest&TPSAWWWPosttest

.09024 .38846 1.488 40 .0725 .256

Pair3

TPSAIntegratedAppPretest&TPSAIntegratedAppPosttest

.14268 .67838 1.347 40 .093 .203

Pair4

TPSATeachingwithTechPretest&TPSATeachingwithTechPosttest

.17073 .77144 1.417 40 .082 .240

Pair5

TPSAStudentLearningPretest&TPSAStudentLearningPosttest

.42277 .93520 2.859 39 .0035 .481

Pair6TPSATeacherPD&TPSATeacherPDPosttest

.16917 .47552 2.250 39 .015 .393

63

Table21

PairedSamplest-TestDescriptiveStatisticsforTPSAC-21ScalesforFemaleTeacher

RespondentsinMakers’GuildProfessionalDevelopmentActivities.

Mean N Std.Deviation

Pair1 TPSAEmail1Pretest 4.7636 33 .28920

TPSAEmailPosttest 4.8727 33 .21690

Pair2 TPSAWWWPretest 4.5939 33 .43728

TPSAWWWPosttest 4.7182 33 .27552

Pair3 TPSAIntegratedApp

Pretest

4.2045 33 .71767

TPSAIntegratedApp

Posttest

4.3939 33 .76073

Pair4 TPSATeachingWith

TechPretest

4.1818 33 .72692

TPSATeachingwith

TechPosttest

4.3636 33 .78335

Pair5 TPSAStudent

LearningPretest

3.8633 32 1.06841

TPSAStudent

LearningPosttest

4.3292 32 .71545

Pair6 TPSATeacherPD

Pretest

4.5417 32 .49910

TPSATeacherPD

Posttest

4.7271 32 .40767

64

Table22

PairedSamplest-TestResultsforTPSAC-21ScalesforFemaleTeacherRespondentsinMakers’

GuildProfessionalDevelopmentActivities.


(1-tailed)

EffectSize

Pair1TPSAEmailPretestTPSAEmailPosttest

.10909 .30859 -2.031 32 .0255 .425

Pair2TPSAWWWPretestTPSAWWWPosttest

.12424 .41910 -1.703 32 .049 .338

Pair3

TPSAIntegratedAppPretestTPSAIntegratedAppPosttest

.18939 .73779 -1.475 32 .075 .256

Pair4

TPSATeachingwithTechPretestTPSATeachingwithTechPosttest

.18182 .85530 -1.221 32 .115 .240

Pair5

TPSAStudentLearningPretestTPSAStudentLearningPosttest

.46596 .99644 -2.645 31 .0065 .512

Pair6TPSATeacherPDPretestTPSATeacherPDPosttest

.18542 .52370 -2.003 31 .027 .406

65

ResearchQuestion3


Makerspaceprofessionaldevelopmentactivitiesbecomemorepositiveintheirattitudes

towardSTEM?”TheresearchhypothesisforResearchQuestion3exploredwas,“After

participationinasemester-longseriesofprofessionaldevelopmentactivities,teacherattitudes

towardSTEMwillincreasebasedonresultsidentifiedthroughtheSTEMSemanticsSurvey

instrument.”ParticipantswereadministeredtheSTEMSemanticsSurveypriortotrainingin

January2016andattheconclusionoftraininginApril2016.Forthe52participantswho

completedboththepretestandposttestSTEMSemanticsSurveyquestionnaire,allreportedan

increaseoneachofthefivescales.

Internalconsistencyreliabilitiesforthesixscalesrangedfrom.939to.788,considered

“excellenttogood”accordingtoguidelinesprovidedbyDeVellis(1991).Pre-postmeanvalues

werecalculatedforeachSTEMSemanticsSurveyscale.Table23indicatesanincreaseinthe

meanforeachscaleexplored,whichincludeddispositionstowardsscience,engineering,

technology,mathematics,andSTEMcareers.ResultsoftheanalysesfortheSTEMSemantics

SurveyaredepictedinTables23and24.

66

Table23

PairedSamplesPre-PostDescriptiveStatisticsforSTEMSemanticsSurveyforAllRespondents



Science Pretest 6.3731 52 .90231

Posttest 6.6231 52 .62579

Engineering Pretest 5.8269 52 1.07304

Posttest 6.0923 52 1.02934

Tech Pretest 6.1500 52 1.02737

Posttest 6.5538 52 .83887

Math Pretest 4.9923 52 1.75609

Posttest 5.8269 52 1.25622

STEMCareer Pretest 5.8692 52 1.35351

Posttest 6.2769 52 1.01915

67

Theresearcherconductedapairedsamplest-testcomparingpretestandposttest

surveyadministrationscalescores.Ofthefiveareasaccessed,therewerepositiveand

statisticallysignificant(p<.05)increasesinSTEMperceptionsforScience,Math,Technology,

andSTEMasaCareer.Surprisingly,participantsreportedthestrongestpositiveincreasein

perceptionstowardsMath,withapvalueat.001,asillustratedinTable24.Effectsizes

indicatingthemagnitudeofthegainineachareaassessedwere(fromsmallesttolargest):.252

forperceptionstowardEngineering,.322forperceptionstowardScience,.339forperceptions

towardSTEMasaCareer,430forperceptionstowardTechnologyand.545forperceptions

towardMath.Pretopostgainsrangefromasmalleffect(.2standarddeviations)(Cohen,1988)

toamoderateeffect(.5standarddeviations)(Cohen,1988).ThefourSTEMdisposition

measuresthatexhibitedstatisticallysignificant(p<.05)gainsallareintherangethatwouldbe

considerededucationallymeaningfulaccordingtocommonlyacceptedguidelines(Bialoand

Sivin-Kachala1996),andallliewithinthezoneofdesiredeffectsasoutlinedbyHattie(2009).

TheseanalysesconfirmedthatMakerspaceGuildeducatorsdidbecomemorepositiveintheir

perceptionsofmath,science,technology,andSTEMasacareerbetweenthestartandtheend

ofprofessionaldevelopment.

SeveralANOVAswereperformedtoinvestigatewhetherdifferencesexistedbygender,

occupation,andsocioeconomiclevelofeducators’schoolsforthefiveSTEMSemanticsSurvey

scales.Tables25,26,27,and28indicatenostatisticalsignificant(p<.05)findingswithregard

totheeducator’sschools’threelevelsofsocioeconomicstatusforeitherpretestorposttest

administrationforallrespondents.Tables29,30,31and32indicatethatnostatistical

significantfindingsemergedwithregardtogenderforeitherpretestorposttestadministration

68

forallrespondents.Withregardtooccupation,nostatisticalsignificantdifferencesonSTEM

dispositionswerefoundforthegroupofrespondentsoverall,asillustratedinTables33,34,35,

and36forallrespondents.Furtheranalysisindicatedthatfemaleteachersbecamestatistically

significantly(p<.05)morepositiveinperceptionsofScience,Math,Engineering,and

Technology,asindicatedinTables37and38.Effectsizecalculationsindicatedasmallto

moderatepre-posteffectofd=.372amongfemaleteachersinperceptionstowardSTEMasa

Career,withamoderateeffect(Cohen,1988)inscience,mathematics,andtechnologySTEM

dispositionmeasures.ForthefemaleteachersparticipatinginMakerspacePDactivities,all

effectsizesexceptforSTEMasaCareerfallwithinthezoneofdesiredeffectsasoutlinedby

Hattie(2009).FemaleteachersbecamemorepositiveintheirperceptionsofScience,Math,

Engineering,andTechnologybetweenthebeginningtotheendofMakerspaceprofessional

developmentactivities.

Withregardtodifferencesoccurringamongschoolsinareaswithlow,mediumorhigh

socioeconomicstatus,resultsofANOVAsindicatedastatisticalsignificant(p<.05)findingthat

teachersworkinginlowincomeschoolsimprovedintheirperceptionsofMathandTechnology,

asdepictedonTables39and40.Effectsizesfurthersupportthesefindings,withlowincome

areateacherperceptionsofScienceyieldingapre-posteffectsizeof.297,indicatingasmall

effect,andallotherscalesproducingamoderateeffect(Cohen,1988)andwithinthezoneof

desiredeffectsasoutlinedbyHattie(2009).

69

Table24

PairedSamples-TestResultsforSTEMSemanticsSurveyScalesforAllRespondents


Mean StandardDeviation T df Sig.

(1-tailed)EffectSize

Science Pretest-Posttest.25000 .78403 -2.299 51 .013

.322

Math Pretest-Posttest.83462 1.68998 -3.561 51 .0005

.545

Engineering

Pretest-Posttest.26538 1.12840 -1.696 51 .048

.252

Tech Pretest-Posttest.40385 1.12476 -2.589 51 .0065

.430

STEMCareer

Prettest-Posttest.40769 1.43457 -2.049 51 .023

.339

70

Table25

DescriptiveStatisticsforSTEMSemanticsSurveyPretestScoresforEducatorsParticipatingin

Makers’GuildProfessionalDevelopmentActivities,byThreeLevelsofSocioconomicStatusof

theEducators’Schools


SciencePretest LowIncome 20 6.1800 1.23612


HighIncome 23 6.5739 .74175

Total 59 6.2949 1.01190

MathPretest LowIncome 20 5.2400 1.54047


HighIncome 23 4.9478 2.00474

Total 59 4.9627 1.73264

EngineeringPretest LowIncome 20 5.7800 1.11620


HighIncome 23 5.9826 1.01965

Total 59 5.7864 1.10164

TechnologyPretest LowIncome 20 6.1200 1.08074


HighIncome 23 6.4000 .91054

Total 59 6.1458 1.02104

STEMCareerPretest LowIncome 20 5.7700 1.53729


HighIncome 23 5.9739 1.41332

71

Total 59 5.8271 1.39282

72

Table26

ANOVAPretestResultsforSTEMSemanticMeasuresforSocioeconomicLevelofSchoolfor



SciencePretest BetweenGroups 3.115 2 1.557 1.550 .221WithinGroups 56.274 56 1.005Total 59.388 58

MathPretest BetweenGroups 3.235 2 1.618 .530 .591WithinGroups 170.883 56 3.051Total 174.118 58

EngineeringPretest BetweenGroups 2.087 2 1.043 .855 .431WithinGroups 68.303 56 1.220Total 70.389 58

TechnologyPretest BetweenGroups 3.277 2 1.638 1.604 .210WithinGroups 57.190 56 1.021Total 60.466 58

STEMCareerPretestBetweenGroups .873 2 .436 .219 .804WithinGroups 111.644 56 1.994Total 112.517 58

73

Table27

DescriptiveStatisticsforSTEMSemanticsSurveyPosttestScaleScoresbySocioeconomicLevelof

School,forEducatorsParticipatinginMakers’GuildProfessionalDevelopmentActivities


SciencePosttest

1 18 6.6333 .665982 13 6.3846 .776583 21 6.7619 .44997

Total 52 6.6231 .62579

MathPosttest

1 18 5.9444 .901782 13 5.6615 1.443113 21 5.8286 1.43288

Total 52 5.8269 1.25622

EngineeringPosttest

1 18 6.2556 .935082 13 5.8462 1.137703 21 6.1048 1.05758

Total 52 6.0923 1.02934

TechnologyPosttest

1 18 6.7333 .779142 13 6.2462 1.111023 21 6.5905 .66776

Total 52 6.5538 .83887

STEMCareerPosttest

1 18 6.5556 .619512 13 5.9077 1.448253 21 6.2667 .95149

Total 52 6.2769 1.01915

74

Table28

ANOVAbySocioeconomicLevelofSchoolResultsforPosttestScoresonSTEMSemanticSurvey

MeasuresforEducatorsParticipatinginMakers’GuildProfessionalDevelopmentActivities


SciencePosttest

BetweenGroups 1.146 2 .573 1.491 .235


MathPosttest BetweenGroups .604 2 .302 .185 .831


EngineeringPosttest

BetweenGroups 1.271 2 .635 .590 .558


TechPosttest BetweenGroups 1.839 2 .919 1.323 .276


STEMCareerPosttest

BetweenGroups 3.172 2 1.586 1.560 .220


75

Table29

DescriptiveStatisticsbyGenderforSTEMSemanticsPretestSurveyScalesforEducators



SciencePretest Female 51 6.2706 1.03524Male 8 6.4500 .89283Total 59 6.2949 1.01190

MathPretest Female 51 4.8627 1.79799Male 8 5.6000 1.11612Total 59 4.9627 1.73264

EngineeringPretest Female 51 5.7216 1.11073Male 8 6.2000 1.00854Total 59 5.7864 1.10164

TechPretest Female 51 6.1490 1.02125Male 8 6.1250 1.08989Total 59 6.1458 1.02104

STEMCareerPretest Female 51 5.7216 1.45771Male 8 6.5000 .54511Total 59 5.8271 1.39282

76

Table30

ANOVAbyGenderforPretestSTEMSemanticSurveyMeasuresforEducatorsParticipatingin



SciencePretest BetweenGroups .223 1 .223 .214 .645WithinGroups 59.166 57 1.038Total 59.388 58

MathPretest BetweenGroups 3.759 1 3.759 1.258 .267WithinGroups 170.359 57 2.989Total 174.118 58

EngineeringPretest BetweenGroups 1.583 1 1.583 1.311 .257WithinGroups 68.806 57 1.207Total 70.389 58

TechnologyPretest BetweenGroups .004 1 .004 .004 .951WithinGroups 60.462 57 1.061Total 60.466 58

STEMCareerPretest BetweenGroups 4.190 1 4.190 2.205 .143WithinGroups 108.326 57 1.900Total 112.517 58

77

Table31

DescriptiveStatisticsbyGenderforSTEMSemanticsPosttestSurveyMeasuresforEducators



SciencePosttest

Female 44 6.6364 .57591Male 8 6.5500 .89921Total 52 6.6231 .62579

MathPosttest

Female 44 5.7455 1.32831Male 8 6.2750 .62278Total 52 5.8269 1.25622

EngineeringPosttest

Female 44 6.1273 1.02444Male 8 5.9000 1.10583Total 52 6.0923 1.02934

TechPosttest Female 44 6.5227 .85423Male 8 6.7250 .77782Total 52 6.5538 .83887

STEMCareerPosttest

Female 44 6.2591 1.08656Male 8 6.3750 .54968Total 52 6.2769 1.01915

78

Table32

ANOVAbyGenderforSTEMSemanticsPosttestMeasuresforEducatorsParticipatinginMakers’


SumofSquares Df MeanSquare F Sig.

SciencePosttest

BetweenGroups .050 1 .050 .127 .723WithinGroups 19.922 50 .398Total 19.972 51

MathPosttest

BetweenGroups 1.898 1 1.898 1.208 .277WithinGroups 78.584 50 1.572Total 80.482 51

EngineeringPostttest

BetweenGroups .350 1 .350 .326 .571WithinGroups 53.687 50 1.074Total 54.037 51

TechPosttest

BetweenGroups .277 1 .277 .389 .536WithinGroups 35.612 50 .712Total 35.889 51

STEMCareerPosttest

BetweenGroups .091 1 .091 .086 .771WithinGroups 52.881 50 1.058Total 52.972 51

79

Table33

ANOVADescriptiveStatisticsforSTEMSemanticsPretestSurveyforThreeGroupsofEducators



SciencePretest Leader 11 6.2727 1.18075Teacher 48 6.3000 .98326Total 59 6.2949 1.01190

MathPretest Leader 11 4.8182 2.10229Teacher 48 4.9958 1.66081Total 59 4.9627 1.73264

EngineeringPretest Leader 11 6.2000 .97980Teacher 48 5.6917 1.11543Total 59 5.7864 1.10164

TechPretest Leader 11 6.4000 .99197Teacher 48 6.0875 1.02887Total 59 6.1458 1.02104

STEMCareerPretest Leader 11 5.8182 1.27892Teacher 48 5.8292 1.43036Total 59 5.8271 1.39282

80

Table34

ANOVAResultsforSTEMSemanticsPretestSurveyforTwoGroupsofEducatorsParticipatingin



Square F Sig.

SciencePretest BetweenGroups .007 1 .007 .006 .937WithinGroups 59.382 57 1.042Total 59.388 58

MathPretest BetweenGroups .282 1 .282 .093 .762WithinGroups 173.836 57 3.050Total 174.118 58

EngineeringPretest BetweenGroups 2.312 1 2.312 1.936 .169WithinGroups 68.077 57 1.194Total 70.389 58

TechPretest BetweenGroups .874 1 .874 .836 .364WithinGroups 59.593 57 1.045Total 60.466 58

STEMCareerPretest BetweenGroups .001 1 .001 .001 .981WithinGroups 112.516 57 1.974Total 112.517 58

81

Table35

DescriptiveStatisticsforSTEMSemanticsPosttestSurveyforTwoGroupsofEducators



SciencePosttest Leader 11 6.5273 .65892Teacher 41 6.6488 .62254Total 52 6.6231 .62579

MathPosttest Leader 11 5.9455 1.34786Teacher 41 5.7951 1.24618Total 52 5.8269 1.25622

EngineeringPosttest

Leader 11 6.1091 1.19453Teacher 41 6.0878 .99704Total 52 6.0923 1.02934

TechnologyPosttest

Leader 11 6.4182 .96521Teacher 41 6.5902 .81111

Total 52 6.5538 .83887STEMCareerPosttest

Leader 11 6.3636 1.02691Teacher 41 6.2537 1.02861Total 52 6.2769 1.01915

82

Table36

ANOVAResultsforSTEMSemanticsPosttestSurveyforTwoGroupsofEducatorsParticipatingin



SciencePosttest

BetweenGroups .128 1 .128 .323 .573


MathPosttestBetweenGroups .196 1 .196 .122 .728


EngineeringPosttest

BetweenGroups .004 1 .004 .004 .952


TechPosttest BetweenGroups .257 1 .257 .360 .551


STEMCareerPosttest

BetweenGroups .105 1 .105 .099 .754


83

Table37

PairedSamplest-TestPre-PostDescriptiveStatisticsforSTEMSemanticMeasures,Female

TeacherParticipantsinMakers’GuildProfessionalDevelopmentActivities



Posttest 6.6727 33 .55186

Engineer-

ing

Prettest 4.9030 33 1.77491

Posttest 5.6788 33 1.33598

Tech Pretest 5.6121 33 1.08736

Posttest 6.1333 33 .98192

Math Pretest 6.0727 33 1.04261

Posttest 6.5576 33 .82728

STEM

Career

Pretest 5.7333 33 1.49136

Posttest 6.2242 33 1.11888

Table38

PairedSamplest-TestPre-PostResultforSTEMSemanticMeasures,FemaleTeacher

ParticipantsinMakers’GuildProfessionalDevelopmentActivities

Mean StandardDeviation T df Sig.


Science Pretest–Posttest .28485 .75338 -2.172 32 .0185 .406

Math Pretest–Posttest .77576 1.36634 -3.262 32 .0015 .492

Engineering

Pretest–Posttest .52121 1.12909 -2.652 32 .006 .501

Tech Pretest–Posttest .48485 .96440 -2.888 32 .0035 .514

STEMCareer

Pretest–Posttest .49091 1.59224 -1.771 32 .043 .372

84

Table39

PairedSamplesPre-PostDescriptiveStatisticsforSTEMSemanticMeasuresforTeachersfrom

LowIncomeAreaSchoolsParticipatinginMakers’GuildProfessionalDevelopmentActivities



Posttest 6.7867 15 .54231

Engineer-

ing

Pretest 5.2400 15 1.71081

Posttest 6.1333 15 .82693

Tech Pretest 5.8400 15 1.04799

Posttest 6.3867 15 .79090

Math Pretest 6.0533 15 1.16488

Posttest 6.9600 15 .15492

STEM

Career

Pretest 6.1600 15 1.41664

Posttest 6.6667 15 .49377

85

Table40

PairedSamplest-TestPre-PostResultsforSTEMSemanticMeasuresforTeachersfromLow

IncomeAreaSchoolsParticipatinginMakers’GuildProfessionalDevelopmentActivities



Science Pretest-Posttest .20000 .59040 -1.312 14 .1055 .297

Math Pretest-Posttest .89333 1.36039 -2.543 14 .0115 .662

Engineering

Pretest-Posttest .54667 1.21059 -1.749 14 .051 .587

Tech Pretest-Posttest .90667 1.14360 -3.071 14 .004 -.478

STEMCareer

Pretest-Protest .50667 1.47526 -1.330 14 .1025 -.477

Summary

Thisstudyexaminedtheeffectofprofessionaldevelopmentoneducators’perceptions

ofabilityandconfidencelevelstowardSTEMandtechnologyintegrationinaMakerspace

environment.Thefollowinghypothesesweretested.


teacherperceptionstowardtheirabilitytointegratetechnologywillincreaseas

measuredbytheStagesofAdoptionofTechnology.

86


teacherconfidencelevelsintheirabilitytointegratetechnologywillincreaseas

measuredbytheTechnologyProficiencySelf-Assessmentfor21stCenturyLearning.


teacherattitudestowardSTEMwillincreasebasedonresultsidentifiedthroughthe

STEMSemanticsSurveyinstrument.

AtotalofN=59subjectsparticipatedinthestudyfromthreeelementaryandthree

middleschoolsinalargeschooldistrict.Schoolsweresimilarinsizebutserveddifferent

studentpopulations,withoneelementaryandmiddleschoolservinglowincomestudents,one

elementaryandmiddleschoolservingmiddle-incomestudents,andoneelementaryandmiddle

schoolservinghigh-incomestudents.Thestudyincluded51(86.4%)femaleandeight(13.6%)

maleparticipants.Elevenparticipantsidentifiedthemselvesascampusadministratorsand48

identifiedthemselvesasteachers.Asawhole,thegroupofalleducatorsexperiencedan

increaseinattitudestowardinstructionaltechnologyduringtheprofessionaldevelopment

experience,withoverallmeansincreasingwhencomparingpre-toposttestadministration.

Leadersreportedastatisticallysignificant(p<.05)higherStageofAdoptionthan

teachersatpretesttime,mean=5.82.LeadersreportedadecreaseinStageofAdoption,mean

=5.64atthetimeofpost-testadministration.Teachersreportedanincreaseincompetencein

technologyintegration,pretestmean=5.13andposttestmean=5.44.Anincreaseinself-

reportedcompetenceintechnologyintegrationwasnotedforfemaleteachers,withaneffect

sizeof.338pretopost,indicatinganeducationallymeaningfuleffectaccordingtocommonly

acceptedguidelines(Bialo&Sivin-Kachala1996)andpretopostgainsof(p<.036)statistically

87

significant..TheMakers’Guildprogramappearstohaveimprovedthealignmentofself-

reportedcompetenciesintechnologyintegrationbetweenleadersandteachersoverthe

courseoftheprofessionaldevelopmentactivities.Evidencealsoemergedthatanincreasein

competenceintechnologyintegrationmayhaveoccurredforfemaleteachersinparticular,but

thiscannotbeconcludedatthep<.05levelbasedonthefindingsofthisstudy.

Participantsasagroupdidincreaseinconfidenceintheirtechnologyproficiencylevels

intheareasofWorldWideWebandEmergingTechnologiesforStudentLearning,overthe

courseoftheMakers’Guildprofessionaldevelopmentprogram.Statisticallysignificant(p<.05)

increasesinconfidencelevelstowardemergingtechnologiesforstudentlearningandworld

widewebskillsemerged.

Leadersreportedastatisticallysignificant(p<.05)higherconfidencelevelinintegrated

applications,emergingtechnologiesforstudentlearning,andemergingtechnologiesfor

teacherprofessionaldevelopmentcomparedtoteachersduringpretestactivities.

Socioeconomicposttestanalysisofvarianceindicatedstaticallysignificant(p<.05)confidence

levelstowardWorldWideWebandemergingtechnologiesforstudentlearning.

LowsocioeconomiccampusesreportedahigherconfidencelevelsinbothWorldWide

Webandemergingtechnologiesforstudentlearningtechnologyproficienciescomparedto

campusesservingmiddleandhigh-incomestudents.ANOVAsexamininggenderdidnot

producestaticallysignificantfindings.Furtheranalysisfoundeducationallysignificantfindings

(p<.05)tosupportanincreaseinconfidenceslevelstowardEmail,EmergingTechnologiesfor

StudentLearning,andTeacherProfessionalDevelopmentforfemaleteachersandteachers

employedfromlowincomeschools.Itwasfoundfemaleteachersemployedatlowincome

88

schoolsimprovedconfidencelevelstowardtechnologyintegrationincreasedattheendof

training.

Educatorsoveralldidreportastaticallysignificant(p<.05)increaseinattitudestoward

math,science,technology,andSTEMcareers.Attitudestowardmathindicatedthelargest

increasefollowedbytechnology,science,andSTEMcareers.ANOVAsinvestigatinggender,

occupation,andsocioeconomicpre-andposttestdidnotproducestaticallysignificantfindings.

Teachersservinglowincomecampusesincreasedperceptionstowardmathandtechnology(p<

.05)withthefindingbeingofsufficientmagnitudetobeeducationallymeaningfulasdefinedby

Bialo&Sivin-Kachola(1996).

FemaleteachersdidimprovetheirattitudestowardScience,Math,Engineering,and

Technologyoverthecourseofthetraining.Femaleteachersworkingatalowincomecampus

improvedperceptionstowardMathandTechnologyoverthecourseofthetraining,further

supportingthetrendthattheMakers’Guildprogramimprovedfemaleteachers’confidence

levelstowardtechnologyandattitudestowardtechnologyandSTEMoverthecourseof

professionaldevelopmentactivities.

89

CHAPTER5

DISCUSSIONANDRECOMMENDATIONS

Liddicoat(2008)highlightstheimportanceof“strengtheningK-12STEMeducation,with

anemphasisonskillsandtrainingprogramsforteachers,toaidinstimulatingeconomic

competivenessandgrowth”(p.14).ThisstudyaddstothelimitedresearchexploringSTEM

professionaldevelopmentinaMakerspaceenvironment.Resultsindicatethateducators

participatingintheMakers’Guildprofessionaldevelopmentprogramdidincreaseinself-

reportedlevelofcompetenceintechnologyintegration,confidenceintechnologyproficiencies

forintegratingtechnology,andSTEMdispositionstowardmath,technology,science,andSTEM

asacareer.Inaddition,thisstudyprovidesinsighttowardhowleadershipandteachers

participatingtogetherinprofessionaldevelopmentmayincreaseteachers’confidencetoward

theleveloftechnologyadoptionorattitudestowardintegratingtechnologyafterlearningina

Makerspaceenvironment.

Ashbrook(2013)highlightstheimportanceofplanningactivitiesforlearnerstoworkon

aproblemorchallenge,whichpromotesSTEMinquiry.Onewaytoconnectearlyinterestinand

thepursuitofSTEMcareersincludesproject-basedlearningactivitiesconnectedthatare

applicabletotherealworld(Christensen&Knezek,2015b;Christensen&Knezek,2017).

ActivitiespresentedtoMakers’Guildparticipantsincorporatingproject-basedlearning

challengecardsthroughfourSTEAMcareerworkstationsmaycauseanincreaseinattitudes

towardmath,science,technology,andSTEMcareers.

90

DiscussionofFindings

Thisstudyexaminedtheeffectofprofessionaldevelopmentonelementaryandmiddle

schooleducators’perceptionsandconfidencelevelstowardSTEMandtechnologyintegration.

Thefollowingresearchquestionswereinvestigatedbythestudy.

ResearchQuestion1:TowhatextentdoeducatorswhoparticipateinSTEMMakerspace

professionaldevelopmentactivitiesincreaseintheirself-appraisalofcompetenceintechnology

integrationabilities?

Researchexaminingparticipants’self-reportedlevelofcompetenceintechnology

integrationbyfemaleteachersfollowingMakerspaceprofessionaldevelopmentdidprovide

statisticallysignificantfindings.Allparticipantsdidreportanincreaseinattitudetoward

technologyintegration.Participantsindicatedahighlevelofadoptionpriortoprofessional

development,leavinglittleroomforgrowth.Thisisevident,asleadersreportedastatistically

significanthighlevelofadoption(p<.05)onpretestsurveyquestionnairesascomparedto

teachersenteringtraining.Thisfindingcouldhaveimprovedthealignmentofself-reported

competenciesintechnologyintegrationbetweenleadersandteachersoverthecourseofthe

professionaldevelopmentactivities.Makerspaceenvironmentsemphasize“learningand

sharingwithanemphasisonparticipatorycultureofcommunitybuilding”(Barniskis,2014,p.

7).ItwasobservedthatthecohortMakers’Guildfosteredasenseofcommunity.Teachers

seemedtobemoreexcitedandinclinedtotrynewtechnologiesbecauseleadersparticipatedin

theprofessionaldevelopmentprogram,providingvaluetotheschoolcohortgroup,which

consistedof1leader,8contentteachers,andaMakerspacefacilitatorfromeachcampus.The

schoolcohortgroupswereobservedtobeanassetaseducators’representedavarietyof

91

contentbackgroundsandconversationsonconnectingMakerspaceactivitiestocontentareas

naturallydeveloped.Educatorsdidreportanincreaseinattitudestowardtechnology

integration.ActivitieswerepresentedbytheMakerspacecommunity,modelinganactive

Makerspacecommunitytoparticipants.Itwasobservedthatcommunityconnectionsand

extendedpartnershipsprovidedthroughthepubliclibrary’sMakerspacecommunity

strengthenedrelationshipsbetweenparticipatingschoolsandcommunitystakeholders.

Librarianswereabletoconnectwithcontentteachersandteachersbegantoconsider

howtheycouldworktogethertooffercreativeopportunitiesforstudentsinacampus

Makerspaceprogram.GroupsworkedtogetherduringMakerspaceactivitiestosolveproblems.

Hands-onactivitiesandactivelearningexperienceswereanewformofprofessional

developmenttomanyoftheeducators’participatingintheprogram.Activitiesintroducedto

participantsduringtheLearningin3Dworkshopincorporatedapplicationsforaugmented

reality,virtualreality,robotics,origami,audiotechnology,textiles,and2Dand3Dgraphic

design.Leadersfounditdifficulttocreateandmakeanartifact,withtheirmeanscoreforself-

reportedcompetenciesintechnologyintegrationslightlydecreasingaftertheMakers’Guild

training.Itwasobservedthatmanyleadersparticipatingintrainingshadlittletonoexperience

using3Dtechnologies,2Dtechnologies,augmentedreality,onlinelearningmanagement

systemsandroboticsandsomeleadersneveraccessedcontentplacedinthelearning

managementsystem,preferringemailcommunications.Self-reportedcompetencetoward

technologydidincreasefollowingthisexperience.

92


professionaldevelopmentactivitiesincreaseintheirconfidenceinintegratingnewinformation

technologyintopedagogicalpractice

Ithasbeenobservedthatteachers’confidenceinone’scompetenceintechnology

integrationasmeasuredbytheTPSAisanimportantcontributortosuccessintheclassroom

(Chrisentsen&Knezek,2014).Researchproducedastatisticallysignificantincreasein

educators’confidencelevelsinintegratingnewinformationtechnologyintopedagogical

practiceduringMakers’Guildprofessionaldevelopmentactivities.Activitiesweredesignedto

engageparticipantsinanestablishedMakerspaceenvironment.Duringthefirsttraining,

educatorswereslowtoparticipateinMakerspaceactivitiesandmanybeganthetraining

sessionobservingworkstationsandtheMakerspacecommunity.Whenchallengedwiththe

freedomtomakeanyartifact,mostteachersdidnotknowhowtorespondastheyseemedto

wantstructure.Mostparticipantshadneverseena3Dprinterorbuiltarobot,butthe

Makerspacecommunitywasproactiveatencouragingparticipantstotrynewtechnologiesand

experimentwithnewcreativeapproaches.Thesocialaspectofthecommunityencouraged

educatorstomakeanartifactandeducatorsseemedtobeateaseandcomfortabletryingnew

emergingtechnologies.

Afterthefirsttraining,resources,communication,andfurtherreadingonhow

Makerspaceactivitiescouldconnectwithcurriculumwerecommunicatedbytheresearcher

andMakers’GuildthroughemailsandCanvasannouncements.Itwasthroughthisplatform,

thatparticipantsbegantoconsiderproject-basedlearningactivities.Challengecardswith

curriculumexampleswereprovidedtoparticipants.AnexampleisprovidedinAppendixB.It

93

wasobservedthatcontentteachersandleaderswereveryinterestedinconnecting

Makerspaceactivitiestocurriculumcontent.TheLearningin3Dworkshopmodeledhowthis

conceptcouldbeconnectedtocurriculumwithallactivitiescenteringaroundmath,science,

andvocabulary.Participantswereexposedtonewapplicationsframedaroundacurriculum

standard.Itwasobservedthatonlinesupportalongwithchallengecardactivitiesencouraged

teacherstotrynewemergingapplicationsforcreationandcuration,manyofwhicharelocated

ontheWorldWideWeb.Teachersseemedtoenjoyprofessionaldevelopment,aslearning

experienceswereactiveinnature,withparticipantsmakingartifactsandsharingwithawider

community,particularlyforfemaleteachersandteachersservinglowincomestudents.This

findingsuggeststhatfurtherresearchisneededtoexplorehowtheMakerspaceenvironment

mightcontributetoincreasingfemaleteacherconfidencelevelsandteachersservinglow

incomestudentpopulations.

ItwasobservedthattheMakerspaceenvironmentlendsasafeandnaturaltechnology

playgroundforlearnerstoexperiencecreativeapproachestonewtechnologieswithoutafear

offailure.MovingprofessionaldevelopmenttoanestablishedMakerspacecommunityprovides

anaturalsettingforeducatorstoexplorenewtechnologiesthatmaynotbereadilyavailable.

Sinceeducatorstookontheroleofastudent,itisonlynaturalthattheirconfidencelevel

towardintegratingEmergingTechnologiesforStudentExperienceswouldincrease.Itwas

surprisingtotheresearchertoseeanincreaseinconfidencelevelstowardemailbybothfemale

teachersandteachersservinglowincomestudents.Communicationwasdeliveredbyemailand

alsopostedintheCanvaslearningmanagementsystem.Itwasobservedthatteachers

preferredtheuseofemailforcommunicationinpartbecauseteachersaresobusyandlogging

94

intoanotherwebsitetofindinformationmightbeseenasanother“todo”task.Teachersare

usedtocheckingemailthroughoutthedayandthiscommunicationmethodseemedtowork

betterasteachersroutinelyaccessemail.TheCanvaslearningmanagementsystemisalsoa

newinitiativefortheparticipatingschoolsandmanyhadyettoattendtrainingontheuseof

theCanvasenvironment.Theparticipatingdistrictwasalsoawardedalargeblendedlearning

grantduringtheSpringof2016,whichencouragedtheuseoftheCanvasenvironment.

ItwasobservedthatthedesignofactivitiesintroducedtoeducatorsduringtheLearning

in3Dworkshopencouragedteachers’confidencelevelstowardusingtechnology.Educators

rotatedtodifferentworkstationstolearnaboutnewapproachesusingaugmentedreality,

origami,virtualreality,3Dprinting,androbotics.Severaleducatorsservinglowincome

studentsseemedtobeveryexcitedatthelevelofengagementthesetechnologiescould

possiblylendtotheirstudents.

Manyoftheaugmentedrealityand3Dmodelingapplicationsintroducedtoteachers

werewebbased.Itwasobservedthatteachersservinglow-incomepopulationswereexcited

totrychallengecardswithstudentstoimproveacademicvocabulary.Manyoftheapplications

andexamplesusedduringtrainingincorporatedwebbasedapplicationsinwhichparticipants

wouldcreateanartifacttomeetamathematicalorscientificchallenge.Manyofthechallenges

emphasizedvocabularyactivities,andalloftheparticipatingschoolsidentifiedvocabularyasa

continuousimprovementgoal.Inaddition,itwasobservedthattheonlineproject-based

learningCanvascoursewaswellreceivedbyparticipantsservinglowincomestudent

populations.Thismightexplainwhyeducators’servinglowincomestudentsreportedahigher

confidencelevelintegratingWorldWideWebonposttestresultsfromlowincomecampuses.

95

Also,anincreaseinconfidencelevelstowardtheWorldWideWebcouldbeduetotheblended

learninggrantinitiatives.Thecommunityexchangeofferedintheonlineprofessional

developmentcoursewasanentirelynewexperienceforallparticipantsintheprogram.


professionaldevelopmentactivitiesbecomemorepositiveintheirattitudestowardSTEM?

Christensen&Knezek(2017)stresstheimportanceofSTEMproficiencyandinterestinSTEMin

elementaryandmiddleschool,asskillsandinteresthavebeenshowntohavealargeimpact

students’academicperformanceandinterestinenteringaSTEMcareerpathway.Teacher

qualityinregardtoknowledgeofthesubjectmatteris“nowunderstoodasthegreater

predictorofacademicsuccess”andmostteachershavelittletonoSTEMtrainingexperiences

(Liddicoat,2008,p.14).Researchdidproduceastatisticallysignificantfindingtowardincreasing

educators’attitudestowardSTEM.ManyparticipantsintheMakers’GuildhadlittletonoSTEM

trainingexperienceandlackedinsightonhowSTEMcouldbeintegratedintocontentareas

priortotraining.TheMakerspacecommunityofferededucatorstheopportunitytoseehow

integratedSTEMactivitiescouldengagestudentsinavarietyofcontentareas.Activities

introducedtoeducatorsincludedastrongmathandscienceconnection.Forexample,

educatorswereintroducedtoscientificaugmentedrealityinteractivewordwalls,whichcould

beusedtoimprovescientificvocabulary.Scalingmethodsincorporating3Ddesignand

fabricationprintingprovidedstrongconnectionstomathcontentareas.Measurement

conversionactivitiesandstorywritingintroducedthroughroboticsconnectedbothEnglish

languageartsandmathematicscontentareas.

96

EducatorswereinterestedinthefourworkstationSTEAMconceptinwhichparticipants

designaproject-basedlearningactivityandmakeanartifactservingoneoffourcareerroles:

scientist,engineer,artist,andjournalist.Theproject-basedlearningMakerspaceprocess

influencedteacherperceptionstowardSTEMcareers.Allparticipantsfoundvalueinconnecting

studentMakerspaceactivitiestocurriculumcontent.Furtherinvestigationisneededtoexplore

thefourworkstationconceptalongwiththeimpacttheMakerspaceenvironmentmayhaveon

educators’perceptionstowardSTEM,especiallyfemaleteachersemployedatlowincome

schools.

Conversationsbegantoemergeonhowsuchactivitiescouldextendclassroomcontent

throughacreativespaceforstudents.Teachersandleadersbegantorecognizethat

Makerspaceactivitiescouldbeapproachedasanextensiontocurriculumcontent.Purposeful

designcouldprovidealevelofengagementforstudentstoconsidercurriculumcontentina

Makerspaceenvironment.StudentcanbecomeaSTEMcareerprofessional,servingtheroleof

ascientist,engineer,artist,orjournalist.Sitevisitslateremphasizedthislevelofexcitementas

campusesbegantodesigntheirMakerspaceenvironmenttofacilitateSTEMcareer

workstationsincorporatingfabricationprinting,robotics,andgreenscreentechnologies.

Activitiesincorporatedmanyvisualizationactivitiessurroundingtopicsinmathandscience.

Furtherresearchexploringvisualizationtechnologies,purposefuldesign,andMakerspace

designisneeded.

Theonlineproject-basedlearningcourseofferedmanySTEMconnectionsandresources

toparticipants.Participantswereencouragedtoshareapplicationsandresourcesusingthis

spacewerescheduledtobecontinued.Twoelementaryschoolshavechosentobegina

97

roboticsclub,twomiddleschoolsarebuildingafabricationprintingshop,andgreenscreen

technologywillbeusedtocreatestudentvideoprojectsinoneelementaryandonemiddle

schoolasaresultoftheNASAMakers’Guildgrant.Onecampushasimplementeda

MakerspaceLabinwhichthefourworkstationconceptiscompletelydesignedbycontent

teachers,notthecampuslibrarian.Thecampushasinvitedthelocalartistsandbusinessesto

serveasguestspeakersandmentorstostudentsaspartoftheSTEAMworkstationconcept.

Limitations

AllparticipantshadyettoexperienceprofessionaldevelopmentinaMakerspace

environment.ThesampleofparticipantsrepresentedindividualsfromnorthTexas,whichmay

limitgeneralizabilitytootherlocations.Participantsmayalreadyhavebeenexposedtotopics

surroundingprofessionaldevelopment.Inaddition,itisimportanttorecognizetheissueofself-

selection,whichisacommonlimitationidentifiedineducationstudies.Participantsmight

naturallybeinterestedinlearningmoreaboutMakerspaceandinstructionaltechnology

environments.

RecommendationsforFurtherStudy

Basedontheresultsofthisstudy,severalrecommendationsaregivenforfurther

studies.DidtheMakerspaceenvironmentinfluencetheincreaseinattitudestoward

technology?Becausethenumberofparticipantsinthisstudyissmall,thereisaneedto

conductthesamestudywithalargernumberofadministratorsandteachers.Anyfuturestudy

couldinvestigatetheimpactofassignedcontentareaandyearsofexperienceoneducators’

attitudesandconfidencelevelstowardintegratingtechnologyandSTEM.Thisstudyshouldbe

repeatedtoalargerpopulationtofurtherexplorestatisticallysignificantfindingsinregardto

98

leaders’self-appraisaloftechnologyadoption.Perhaps,leaders’enteredtheMakers’Guild

professionaldevelopmentprogramlackingagrowthmindset.Futurestudiescouldprovide

furtherinsightastowhyleaders’perceiveahigherleveloftechnologyadoptioncomparedto

teachersenteringtheMakers’Guildprogram.Thisfindingseemstohaveencouragedteachers

toimprovetheirattitudestowardtechnologyattheendoftraining.Althoughfemaleteacher

attitudesdidincreaseattheendoftraining,thedifferencewasstatisticallysignificant.Further

researchisneededtoexplorehowtheMakers’Guildprograminfluencesattitudestoward

integratingtechnology,particularlytargetingfemaleteachers.Furtherresearchisneededto

explorehowleadersmightinfluencefemaleteachers’attitudestowardtechnology.Inaddition,

itisnotknowniftheMakerspaceenvironmenthadaneffectonparticipants’attitudestoward

integratingtechnology.FurtherresearchisneededtoexplorehowtheMakerspace

environmentmightinfluenceparticipants’attitudestowardtechnologyintegration.

DidtheMakerspaceprofessionaldevelopmentprogramactivitiesinfluencefemale

teacherperceptionstowardintegratingtechnology?TheMakers’Guildteachersdidreporta

statisticallysignificant(P<.05)increaseinconfidencelevelstowardintegratingtechnology,with

anemphasisonEmergingTechnologiesforStudentLearning,theWorldWideWeb,and

TeacherPD.Findingsfurthersupporttheneedforadditionalresearchexploringtheimpactof

theMakers’Guildprofessionaldevelopmentactivitiesonfemaleteachersandteachersserving

lowincomepopulations.Furtherresearchcouldexploretheimpactofactivitiesincorporating

augmentedreality,origami,virtualreality,3Dprinting,androboticsonlowincomestudents.

TheresearcherplanstorepeatthisexerciseduringtheSpringof2017withanewgroupof

educators.ItwouldbeinterestingtostudytheeffectofMakerspaceprofessionaldevelopment

99

activitiesonstudents’attitudestowardsSTEM.Theresearcherplanstoinvestigatestudent

attitudesduringthe2016-2017academicschoolyear.

OveralltheMakers’Guildprofessionaldevelopmentexperienceappearstohavebeena

success.Educators’confidencelevelsregardingtechnologyandattitudestowardstechnology

andSTEM,especiallyforfemaleteachersandteachersservinglowincomepopulationsdid

reportastatisticallysignificant(p<.05)increase.Futureresearchisneededasthisstudywas

limitedtoatreatmentgroupstudy.Afuturecomparisonstudycouldfurtherexploretheimpact

oftheMakerspaceenvironment.Inaddition,futurestudiesareneededtoinvestigatefemale

teacherconfidencelevelstowardtechnologyandattitudestowardSTEMandtechnologyina

Makerspaceprofessionaldevelopmentprogram.Activitiesincorporatedtheartsand

visualizationtechnologies,withparticipantscreatingartifactsusingaugmentedreality,3D

modeling,andorigami.Perhapstheseactivitiesinfluencedtheincreaseinteacherconfidence

levelstowardtechnologyandperceptionstowardSTEM.Futureresearchisneededtoexplore

theartcomponent’simpactusingtheproject-basedlearningprocessonbothstudents’and

educators’perceptionstowardsmathandscienceinfuturestudies.

Researchexploringtherelationshipbetweenelementaryandmiddleschoolstudent

STEMinterestandSTEMcareerscontinuestoincrease(Christensen&Knezek,2017).Teacher

preparationprogramsthatprovideparticipantswithhands-onSTEMproject-basedlearning

activitiesandconnectteacherstoextendedMakerspacecommunitiescouldimproveteachers’

self-appraisalofcompetenceoftechnologyintegration,confidencelevelstowardintegrating

technology,andincreaseattitudestowardSTEM.Liddicoat(2008)stressestheimportanceof

empoweringteacherstobecollaborativethroughstrongSTEMteacherprofessional

100

developmentprograms,as“highlyeffectiveteacherworkforcecompetentinSTEMiscriticalto

theSTEMtalentpool”(p.19).ItwasobservedthattheMakers’Guildprofessionaldevelopment

programdidempowerteacherstocollaboratewithintheMakerspacecommunityandbegin

integratingSTEMintocorecontentareas.Additionalstudiesareneededtofurtherinvestigate

findingsandimpactonacademicachievement.

101

APPENDIX A

MAKER’S GUILD LEARNING OBJECTIVES

102

BuildingMakerspaceExperiences

● ExperiencelearninginaMakerspaceenvironment.

● LearnaboutdifferentapproachestowardsdesigningMakerspaceenvironments.

● ConnectwithpubliclibraryMakerspaceprograms.

DesignThinking

● Understandthedesignthinkingprocess.

● Identifyfuturereadyinitiatives.

● Defineanddesignaschoolinnovationspace.

● Createadesignchallenge.

Learningin3D

● Exploreavarietyof3DlearningtechnologieswithinaMakerspaceenvironmentto

include3Dprinting,augmentedrealityiOSapplication,andvirtualreality.

● Developanunderstandingastohowtoapplycurriculumcoreconnections(science,

mathematics,socialstudies,andEnglishlanguagearts)integratinga3Dtechnology.

● Considerwhattypesof3DtechnologiesyourcampusMakerspacemightwanttopursue.

Project-BasedLearning

● DesignMakerspaceenvironmentusingfreeresourcesthatincorporatesaProject-Based

Learningworkshopmodel.

● UseaSTEAM(science,technology,engineering,art,andmath)approachtomap

discoverylearningexperiencestocorecontentneeds.

103

● Consider how to transform classrooms and schools for 21st century learners through

design.

● Identifyfuturisticlearningapproachesandskillssetsneededforafuturedigitalcitizen.

● Understandhowtobegintoimplement3Dprintingsoftwareprograms,computational

thinkingactivities,greenscreen,andotherSTEAMprograms.

● Connectwithotherprofessionalstosharebestpracticesforachievingcommunitybuy-

in.

● Identifyfundingopportunitiesandgaininsightsabouthowtoconnectyourorganization’sMakerspacetocommunitypartners

104

APPENDIX B

CHALLENGE CARD EXAMPLES

105

ThinkLikeanEngineer

ThinkLikeanArtist

106

ThinkLikeaJournalist

ThinkLikeaScientist

107

108

APPENDIX C

RESEARCH SCHOOL APPLICATION, ACCEPTANCE LETTER, IRB

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

REFERENCES

Ashbrook,P.(2013).TheSTEMofinquiry.ScienceandChildren,51(2),30-31.

Alesandrini,K.,&Larson,L.(2002).Teachersbridgetoconstructivism.TheClearingHouse,

75(3),118–121.

Barniskis,S.C.(2014).MakerspacesandTeachingArtists.TeachingArtistJournal,12(1),6-14.

Bahr,D.L.,Shaha,S.H.,Farnsworth,B.J.L.,Valerie,K.,&Benson,L.F.(2004).Preparing

tomorrow'steacherstousetechnology:Attitudinalimpactsoftechnology-supported

fieldexperienceonpre-serviceteachercandidates..JournalofInstructional

Psychology,31(2),88-98.

Barr,R.(2010).Transferoflearningbetween2Dand3Dsourcesduringinfancy:Informing

theoryandpractice.DevelopmentalReview,30(2),128-154.

Batts,D.,&Lesko,C.(2011,July).JETSTEAMScompetitionsbuildsfutureleadersinSTEMfields.

PostersessionpresentedatthemeetingoftheAmericanSocietyforQualitySTEM

(Science,Technology,Engineering,andMathematics)AgendainEducation,the

Workplace,andSocietyConference,Menomonie,WI.Postersessionpaperretrieved

fromhttp://asq.org/edu/2011/06/best-practices/jets-teams-competition-builds-future-

leaders-in-stem-fields.html

Baxter,J.,Ruzicka,A.,Beghetto,R.,&Livelybrooks,D.(2014).Professionaldevelopment

strategicallyconnectingmathematicsandscience:Theimpactonteachers’confidence

andpractice.SchoolScienceandMathematics,114(3),103–113.

118

Bequette,J.W.,&Brennan,C.(2008).Advancingmediaartseducationinvisualartsclassrooms:

Addressingpolicyambiguitiesandgapsinartteacherpreparation.StudiesinArt

Education,49(4),328-342.

Bevan,B.,Gutwill,J.P.,Petrich,M.,&Wilkinson,K.(2015).LearningThroughSTEM-Rich

Tinkering:FindingsFromaJointlyNegotiatedResearchProjectTakenUpinPractice.

ScienceEducation,99(1),98-120.

Bialo,E.R.,&Sivin-Kachala,J.(1996).Theeffectivenssoftechnologyinschools:Asummaryof

recentresearch.SchoolLibraryMediaQuarterly,25(1)51-57.

Black,J.,&Browning,K.(2011).Creativityindigitalarteducationteachingpractices.Art

Education,64(5),19–34.

Bouvier,S.,&Connors,K.(2011).Increasingstudentinterestinscience,technology,

engineering,andmath(STEM):MassachusettsSTEMPipelineFundprogramsusing

promisingpractices.ReportpreparedfortheMassachusettsDepartmentofHigher

Education.Retrievedfromhttp://www.mass.edu/stem/documents/

Student%20Interest%20Summary%20Report.pdf.

Bouwma-Gearhart,J.(2012).ResearchuniversitySTEMfacultymembers’motivationtoengage

inteachingprofessionaldevelopment:Buildingthechoirthroughanappealtoextrinsic

motivationandego.JournalofScienceEducationandTechnology,21(5),558-570.

Brown,T.A.(2015).Teacher’sguidetousingtheNextGenerationScienceStandardswithgifted

andadvancedlearners.ScienceandChildren,52(8),74.

Candy,L.(2007).ConstraintsandCreativityintheDigitalArts.Leonardo,40(4),366-367.

119

Christensen,R.(1997).Effectoftechnologyintegrationeducationontheattitudesofteachers

andtheirstudents.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,UniversityofNorthTexas,

Denton,TX.RetrievedMarch17,2016,from

http://digital.library.unt.edu/explore/collections/UNTETD/.

Christensen,R.(2002).Effectsoftechnologyintegrationeducationontheattitudesofteachers

andstudents.JournalofResearchontechnologyinEducation,34(4),411-433.

Christensen,R.,Parker,D.,&Knezek,G.(2005).Advancesinpreserviceeducatorcompetence

andconfidenceintechnologyintegration:ComparativefindingsfromtwoPt3projects.

Integratedtechnologies,innovativelearning:InsightsfromthePT3program.Eugene,

OR:ISTE.

Christensen,R.,&Knezek,G.(1999).Stagesofadoptionfortechnologyineducation.Computers

inNewZealandSchools,11(3),25-29.

Christensen,R.,&Knezek,G.(2015,July).Thetechnologyproficiencyself-assessment

1uestionnaire(TPSA-C21):evolutionofaself-efficacymeasurefortechnology

integration.InT.Brinda,N.Reynolds,R.Romeike,&A.Schwill(Eds.),Proceedingsofthe

KEYCIT2014:KeycompetenciesininformaticsandICTConference(p.311).Potsdam,

Germany:UniversityofPotsdam.

Christensen,R.&Knezek,G.(2015).Activelearningapproachestointegratingtechnologyinto

middleschoolscienceclassrooms:Reconceptualizingamiddleschoolsciencecurriculum

basedon21stcenturyskills.InX.Ge,D.Ifenthaler,&J.M.Spector(Eds.).FullSteam

Ahead:EmergingTechnologiesforSTEAM.NewYork:SpringerAcademic.

120

Christensen,R.&Knezek,G.(2017).ValidatingthetechnologyproficiencyselfAasessmentfor

21stcenturylearning(TPSAC21)instrument.JournalofDigitalLearninginTeacher

Education.DOI:10.1080/21532974.2016.1242391

Christensen,R.,&Knezek,G.(2014).Thetechnologyproficiencyself-assessmentquestionnaire

(TPSA):Evolutionofaself-efficacymeasurefortechnologyintegration.InT.Brinda,N.

Reynolds&R.Romeike(Eds.)ProceedingsofKEYCIT2014–KeyCompetenciesin

InformaticsandICT,2014,pp.190-196.

Cohen,J.(1988).Statisticalpoweranalysisforthebehavioralsciences(2nded.).Hillsdale,NJ:

LawrenceEarlbaumAssociates.

Cotabish,A.,Dailey,D.,Hughes,G.D.,&Robinson,A.(2011).TheeffectsofaSTEMprofessional

developmentinterventiononelementaryteachers’scienceprocessskills.Researchin

theSchools,18(2),16–25.

Das,A.K.(2014).Fundamentalsofvirtuallearningenvironments(VLE)anditscomponents.

IndianJournalofLibraryandInformationScience,8(1),41.

Daugherty,J.L.,&Custer,R.L.(2012).Secondarylevelengineeringprofessionaldevelopment:

Content,pedagogy,andchallenges.InternationalJournalofTechnologyandDesign

Education,22(1),51–64.

DeVellis,R.F.(1991).Guidelinesinscaledevelopment.Scaledevelopment:Theoryand

applications(p.5191).NewburyPark,CA:Sage.

English,L.D.(2016).STEMeducationK-12:perspectivesonintegration.InternationalJournalof

STEMEducation,3(1),1.

121

Feldman,A.,&Pirog,K.(2011).Authenticscienceresearchinelementaryschoolafter-school

scienceclubs.JournalofScienceEducationandTechnology,20(5),494–507.

Flowers,L.O.,Raynor,J.E.,&White,E.N.(2012).EvaluationinonlineSTEMcourses.

InternationalJournalofBusinessandSocialScience,3(18),16-20.

Fourie,I.andMeyer,A.(2015)‘Whattomakeofmakerspaces’,LibraryHiTech,33(4),pp.519–

525.

Gilakjani,A.P.,Lai-Mei,L.,&Ismail,H.N.(2013).Teachers'useoftechnologyand

constructivism.InternationalJournalofModernEducationandComputerScience,5(4),

49.

Hattie,J.A.C.(2009).Visiblelearning:Asynthesisof800+meta-analysesonachievement.

Abingdon:Routledge.

Hira,A.,Joslyn,C.H.,&Hynes,M.M.(2014).ClassroomMakerspaces:Identifyingthe

opportunitiesandchallenges.InProceedingsofthe2014IEEEFrontiersinEducation

Conference(FIE)(pp.1-5).NewYork,NY:InstituteofElectricalandElectronicsEngineers

(IEEE).

Henson,R.K.,Bennett,D.T.,Sienty,S.F.,&Chambers,S.M.(2000).Therelationshipbetween

means-endtaskanalysisandcontext-specificandglobalself-efficacyinemergency

certificationteachers:exploringanewmodelofteacherefficacy.Paperpresentedatthe

annualmeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,NewOrleans.

Hooper,S.,&Rieber,L.P.(1995).Teachingwithtechnology.InA.C.Ornstein(Ed.),Teaching:

Theoryintopractice(pp.154-170).NeedhamHeights,MA:AllynandBacon.

122

Horowitz,S.S.,&Schultz,P.H.(2014).Printingspace:Using3Dprintingofdigitalterrainmodels

ingeoscienceseducationandresearch.JournalofGeoscienceEducation,62(1),138–

145.

Hoy,W.K.,&Woolfolk,A.E.(1990)Socializationofstudentteachers.AmericanEducational

ResearchJournal,27,279-300.

Huziak-Clark,T.,Sondergeld,T.,vanStaaden,M.,Knaggs,C.andBullerjahn,A.(2015).Assessing

theimpactofaresearch-basedSTEMprogramonSTEMmajors’attitudesandbeliefs.

SchoolScienceandMathematics,115(5),226–236.

Jang,H.(2016).Identifying21stcenturySTEMcompetenciesusingworkplacedata.Journalof

ScienceEducationandTechnology,25(2),284-301.

Kafai,Y.B.,&Resnick,M.(Eds.).(1996).Constructionisminpractice:Designing,thinking,and

learninginadigitalworld.London,UK:Routledge,1-2.

Karagiorgi,Y.,&Symeou,L.(2005).Translatingconstructivismintoinstructionaldesign:

Potentialandlimitations.JournalofEducationalTechnology&Society,8(1),17-27.

Keengwe,J.,Georgina,D.,&Wachira,P.(2010).Facultytrainingstrategiestoenhance

pedagogy-technologyintegration.InternationalJournalofInformationand

CommunicationTechnologyEducation(IJICTE),6(3),1-10.

Knezek,G.,&Christensen,R.(1998).InternalconsistencyreliabilityfortheTeachersAttitudes

TowardInformationTechnology(TAT)questionnaire.InS.McNeil,J.D.Price,S.Boger-

Mehall,B.Robin,&J.Willis,(Eds.),ProceedingsoftheSocietyofInformationTechnology

&TeacherEducation(SITE)'s9thinternationalconference(Vol.2,pp.831-832).

Charlottesville,VA:AssociationfortheAdvancementofComputinginEducation.

123

Knezek,G.,Christensen,R.,&Tyler-Wood,T.(2011).ContrastingperceptionsofSTEMcontent

andcareers.ContemporaryIssuesinTechnologyandTeacherEducation,11(1),92–117.

Koehler,M.J.,Mishra,P.,&Cain,W.(2013).Whatistechnologicalpedagogicalcontent

knowledge(TPACK)?.JournalofEducation,193(3).

Koh,K.,&Abbas,J.(2015).Competenciesforinformationprofessionalsinlearninglabsand

Makerspaces.JournalofEducationforLibraryandInformationScience,56(2),114.

Kuenzi,J.J.(2008).Science,technology,engineering,andmathematics(STEM)education:

Background,federalpolicy,andlegislativeaction.Washington,DC:Congressional

ResearchService,LibraryofCongress.

Kurti,R.S.,Kurti,D.L.,&Fleming,L.(2014).ThephilosophyofeducationalMakerspaces:Part1

ofmakinganeducationalMakerspace.TeacherLibrarian,41(5),8.

Li,Z.Z.,Cheng,Y.B.,&Liu,C.C.(2013).Aconstructionismframeworkfordesigninggame-like

learningsystems:Itseffectondifferentlearners.BritishJournalofEducational

Technology,44(2),208-224.

Liddicoat,S.(2008).NASAenrichedcollaborativeSTEMK-12teacherprofessionaldevelopment

instituteswithintheCaliforniaStateUniversitysystem.In2008IEEEFrontiersin

EducationConference(FIE)(pp.14–19).NewYork,NY:InstituteofElectricaland

ElectronicsEngineers(IEEE).

Lubinski,D.,&Benbow,C.P.(2006).Studyofmathematicallyprecociousyouthafter35years:

Uncoveringantecedentsforthedevelopmentofmath-scienceexpertise(Special

section:Doingpsychologicalscience),PerspectivesinPsychologicalScience,1(4),316–

345.

124

Maddux,C.D.(2006).PT3andtheDeans'Grants:SomeImportantDifferences.Computersin

theSchools,23(3-4),151-155.

Marsick,V.J.(1998).Transformativelearningfromexperienceintheknowledgeera.Daedalus,

127(4),119–136.

Matherson,L.H.,Wilson,E.K.,&Wright,V.H.(2014).NeedTPACK?Embracesustained

professionaldevelopment.DeltaKappaGammaBulletin,81(1),45-52.

Mishra,P.,&Koehler,M.(2006).TechnologicalPedagogicalContentKnowledge:Aframework

forteacherknowledge.TheTeachersCollegeRecord,108(6),1017-1054.

Moakler,M.W.,&Kim,M.M.(2014).CollegemajorchoiceinSTEM:Revisitingconfidenceand

demographicfactors.TheCareerDevelopmentQuarterly,62(2),128-142.

Moore,W.,&Esselman,M.(1992).Teacherefficacy,power,schoolclimateandachievement.A

desegregatingdistrict’sexperience.Paperpresentedattheannualmeetingofthe

AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,SanFrancisco.

Morales,C.,Knezek,G.,&Christensen,R.(2008).Self-efficacyratingsoftechnologyproficiency

amongteachersinMexicoandTexas.ComputersintheSchools,25(1-2),126–144.

Murphy,C.,Neil,P.,&Beggs,J.(2007).Primaryscienceteacherconfidencerevisited:Tenyears

on.EducationalResearch,49(4),415-430.

Murphy,T.P.,&Mancini-Samuelson,G.(2012).GraduatingSTEMcompetentandconfident

teachers:ThecreationofaSTEMcertificateforelementaryeducationmajors.Journalof

CollegeScienceTeaching,42(2),18–24.

125

Nadelson,L.S.,Callahan,J.,Pyke,P.,Hay,A.,Dance,M.,&Pfiester,J.(2013).TeacherSTEM

perceptionandpreparation:Inquiry-basedSTEMprofessionaldevelopmentfor

elementaryteachers.TheJournalofEducationalResearch,106(2),157-168.

Nadelson,L.S.,Seifert,A.,Moll,A.J.,&Coats,B.(2012).iSTEMsummerinstitute:Anintegrated

approachtoteacherprofessionaldevelopmentinSTEM.JournalofSTEMEducation,

13(2),69–84.

Papert,S.(1993).Thechildren'smachine:Rethinkingschoolintheageofthecomputer.New

York:BasicBooks.

Papert,S.,&Harel,I.(1991).SituatingConstructionism(Preface),inI.Harel&S.Papert(Eds.),

Constructionism:Researchreportsandessays,1985-1990(pp.1-11).Norwood,NJ:

Ablex.

Park,J.,Kim,D.-E.,&Sohn,M.(2011).3Dsimulationtechnologyasaneffectiveinstructional

toolforenhancingspatialvisualizationskillsinappareldesign.InternationalJournalof

TechnologyandDesignEducation,21(4),505–517.

Polly,D.,Mims,C.,Shepherd,C.E.,&Inan,F.(2010).Evidenceofimpact:Transformingteacher

educationwithpreparingtomorrow'steacherstoteachwithtechnology(PT3)

grants.TeachingandTeacherEducation,26(4),863-870.

Prain,V.,&Waldrip,B.(2006).Anexploratorystudyofteachers’andstudents’useofmulti-

modalrepresentationsofconceptsinprimaryscience.InternationalJournalofScience

Education,28(15),1843–1866.

President’sCouncilofAdvisorsonScienceandTechnology.(2010,September).Prepareand

inspire:K-12educationinscience,technology,engineering,andmath(STEM)for

126

America’sfuture(pp.A-6,A-7).[ExecutiveReport].Retrievedfrom

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-

final_2-25-12.pdf

Pryor,B.W.,Pryor,C.R.,&Kang,R.(2016).Teachers’thoughtsonintegratingSTEMintosocial

studiesinstruction:Beliefs,attitudes,andbehavioraldecisions.TheJournalofSocial

StudiesResearch,40(2),123-136.

Purpur,E.,Radniecki,T.,Colegrove,P.T.,&Klenke,C.(2016).RefocusingmobileMakerspace

outreacheffortsinternallyasprofessionaldevelopment.LibraryHiTech,34(1),130-142.

Ropp,M.M.(1999).Exploringindividualcharacteristicsassociatedwithlearningtouse

computersinpreserviceteacherpreparation.JournalofResearchonComputingin

Education,31(4),402–424.

Russell,A.L.(1995).Stagesinlearningnewtechnology:Naiveadultemailusers.Computers&

Education,25(4),173-178.

Salvo,M.J.(1998).ConstructionisminPractice:Designing,Thinking,andLearninginaDigital

World.TechnicalCommunicationQuarterly,7(4),467.

Sheridan,K.,Halverson,E.R.,Litts,B.,Brahms,L.,Jacobs-Priebe,L.,&Owens,T.(2014).

Learninginthemaking:AcomparativecasestudyofthreeMakerspaces.Harvard

EducationalReview,84(4),505-531.

Shulman,L.(1987).Knowledgeandteaching:Foundationsofthenewreform.Harvard

educationalreview,57(1),1-23.

Shulman,L.S.(1986).Thosewhounderstand:Knowledgegrowthinteaching.Educational

Researcher,15(2),4-14.

127

Skaza,H.,Crippen,K.J.,&Carroll,K.R.(2013).Teachers’barrierstointroducingsystem

dynamicsinK-12STEMcurriculum.SystemDynamicsReview,29(3),157-169.

Smay,D.,&Walker,C.(2015).Makerspaces:Acreativeapproachtoeducation.Teacher

Librarian,42(4),39.

Smith,S.(2014).Throughtheteacher’seyes :UnpackingtheTPACKofdigitalfabrication

integrationinmiddleschoollanguagearts.JournalofResearchonTechnology

Education,46(2),207–227.

Stager,G.S.(2013).Papert'sprisonfablab:Implicationsforthemakermovementand

educationdesign.InProceedingsofthe12thInternationalConferenceonInteraction

DesignandChildren(pp.487-490).NewYork,NY:ACM.

Stohlmann,M.,Moore,T.,&Roehrig,G.(2012).ConsiderationsforteachingintegratedSTEM

education.JournalofPre-CollegeEngineeringEducationResearch(J-PEER),2(1),28‑34.

Sun,P.C.,Finger,G.,&Liu,Z.L.(2014).MappingtheevolutionofeLearningfrom1977–2005to

informunderstandingsofeLearninghistoricaltrends.EducationSciences,4(1),155‑171.

Tangdhanakanond,K.,Pitiyanuwat,S.,&Archwamety,T.(2006).Adevelopmentofportfoliofor

learningassessmentofstudentstaughtbyfull-scaleconstructionismapproachat

DarunsikklialaiSchool.ResearchintheSchools,13(2),24-36.

Teo,T.W.,&Ke,K.J.(2014).ChallengesinSTEMTeaching:ImplicationforPreserviceand

InserviceTeacherEducationProgram.TheoryIntoPractice,53(1),18-24.

TexasEducationAgency(2015).SchoolReportCard.RetrievedJuly2016,from

https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfreport/src/2015/campus.srch.html.

128

Tyler-Wood,T.,Knezek,G.,&Christensen,R.(2010).InstrumentsforassessinginterestinSTEM

contentandcareers.JournalofTechnologyandTeacherEducation,18(2),345‑368.

Varney,M.W.,Janoudi,A.,Aslam,D.M.,&Graham,D.(2012).Buildingyoungengineers:

TASEMforthirdgradersinWoodcreekMagnetElementarySchool.IEEEtransactionson

education,55(1),78.

Voogt,J.,Knezek,G.,Cox,M.,Knezek,D.,&tenBrummelhuis,A.(2013).Underwhich

conditionsdoesICThaveapositiveeffectonteachingandlearning?Acalltoaction.

JournalofComputerAssistedLearning,29(1),4–14.

Wang,H.H.,Moore,T.J.,Roehrig,G.H.,&Park,M.S.(2011).STEMintegration:Teacher

perceptionsandpractice.JournalofPre-CollegeEngineeringEducationResearch

(J‑PEER),1(2),2.

129

Date post:	03-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Effect of Makerspace Professional Development Activities .../67531/metadc955091/m2/1/high_re… ·...

Documents