Making Learners: A Framework for Evaluating Making in STEM Education
Main Article Content
Abstract
The maker movement has strong connections to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) as well as art and crafts, but the goals of making are not in perfect alignment with any of these disciplines. Within the problem-based paradigm, however, there is room to incorporate making as situated STEM learning, even in formal, standards-based educational settings. We report on a framework for making in STEM education and describe a rubric for assessing the presence of the essential elements of making within STEM instruction. We present examples of the application of the rubric in a STEM teacher education course.
Article Details
1. Publication and Promotion: In consideration of the Publisher’s agreement to publish the Work, Author hereby grants and assigns to Publisher the non-exclusive right to print, publish, reproduce, or distribute the Work throughout the world in all means of expression by any method now known or hereafter developed, including electronic format, and to market or sell the Work orany part of it as Publisher sees fit. Author further grants Publisher the right to use Author’s name in association with the Work inpublished form and in advertising and promotional materials
2. Copyright: Copyright of the Work remains in Author’s name.
3. Prior Publication and Attribution: Author agrees not to publish the Work in print form prior to publication of the Work by the Publisher. Author agrees to cite, by author, title, and publisher, the original Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning publication when publishing the Work elsewhere
4. Author Representations: The Author represents and warrants that the Work:
(a) is the Author’s original Work and that Author has full power to enter into this Agreement;
(b) does not infringe the copyright or property of another;
(c) contains no material which is obscene, libelous, defamatory or previously published, in whole or in part.
Author shall indemnify and hold Publisher harmless against loss of expenses arising from breach of any such warranties.
5. Licensing and Reuse: Reuse of the published Work will be governed by a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/4.0/). This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon the Work non-commercially; although new works must acknowledge the original Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning publication and be non-commercial, they do not have to be licensed on the same terms.
References
Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of making in science education. Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1275380
Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich. M., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning through STEM-rich tinkering: Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Science Education, 99(1), 98–120.
Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and “making” in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter- Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors (pp. 203–222). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript Publishers.
Buechley, L. (2013, October). Closing address. FabLearn Conference, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. Retrieved from http://edstream.stanford.edu/Video/Play/883b61dd951d4d3f90abeec65eead2911d
Clapp, E. P. (2017). Empowering young people to shape their worlds through maker-centered learning. Available at http://makered.org/blog/empowering-young-people-to-shape-their-worlds-through-maker-centered-learning/
Clapp, E. P., Ross, J., Ryan, J. O., & Tishman, S. (2016). Maker- centered learning: Empowering young people to shape their worlds. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, J., Jones, W. M., Smith, S., & Calandra, B. (2017). Makification: Towards a framework for leveraging the maker movement in formal education. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 26(3), 217–229.
Corbat, J., & Quinn, C. (2018, April). Engaging preservice teachers in the makerspace: Embracing the maker movement in a multi-level teacher preparation program. Presentation at the annual convention of the Society of Information Technology and Teacher Education, Washington, DC.
Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 7(3), 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1162/INOV_a_00135
Dougherty, D. (2013). The maker mindset. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design. Make. Play. Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 7–16). New York, NY: Routledge.
Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063.
Hatch, M. (2014). The maker movement manifesto. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
Jones, W., Smith, S., & Cohen, J. (2017). Preservice teachers’ beliefs about using maker activities in formal K–12 educational settings: A multi-institutional study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49, 134–148.
Marshall, J. A., & Harron, J. (February, 2017). The maker movement in a UTeach physics class, American Association of Physics Teachers Meeting, Atlanta, GA.
Marshall, J. A., Petrosino, A. J., & Martin, H. T. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ conceptions and enactments of Project Based Instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(4), 370–386.
Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1099
NAE and NRC Committee on K–12 Engineering Education. (2009). Engineering in K–12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.5912&rep=rep1&type=pdf
National Academy of Engineering Committee on Standards in K–12 Engineering Education. (2010). Standards for K–12 engineering education? Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id512990/standards-for-k-12-engineering-education
Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M., & Jaccheri, M. L. (2017). Empirical studies on the maker movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review. Entertainment Computing, 18, 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2016.09.002
Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Peppler, K., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y. B. (2016). Chapter 1: Introduction to this volume. In K. Peppler, E. Halverson, & Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1, pp. 1–11). New York, NY: Routledge.
Petrich, M., Wilkinson, K., & Bevan, B. (2013). It looks like fun, but are they learning? In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 50–70). New York, NY: Routledge.
Remold, J., Fusco, J., Anderson, K., & Leones, T. (2016), Communities for maker educators: A study of the communities and resources that connect educators engaged in making. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Rodriguez, S. R., Harron, J. R., & DeGraff, M. W. (2018). UTeach Maker: A micro-credentialing program for pre-service teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34(1), 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2017.1387830
Sator, A. J., & Bullock, S. M. (2017). “Making” as a catalyst for reflective practice. Reflective Practice, 18(2), 244–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2016.1268118
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31–38.