Abstract
Makerspaces are recent additions to schools and have been promoted as a means of developing STEM knowledge and skills. According to literature, the practical nature of making supports deeper engagement with STEM concepts and enhances development of STEM capabilities such as creativity, critical thinking, problem solving and collaboration. However, to date, limited empirical work has been completed investigating STEM learning in school makerspaces. This article reports outcomes from a study of 24 classroom makerspaces, where 5–8-year olds used 3D printing technology to design and develop artefacts responding to different problems, needs and opportunities. Findings were mixed, with evidence supporting makerspaces as effective for STEM skill and disposition development but more limited in their capacity to build STEM knowledge, unless this was explicitly identified and targeted by teachers. This paper questions assumptions about makerspaces as implicitly effective for STEM knowledge-building, arguing that teachers must specifically target conceptual outcomes in planning and teaching if makerspaces are to be effective for this purpose. Also, findings suggest the need to rethink how makerspaces contribute to holistic STEM literacy development, moving beyond current perspectives focused on learning about STEM, to one where makerspaces are viewed as epistemic environments beneficial to knowledge-building, of STEM. Findings will be of value to educators considering makerspaces as a component of STEM curriculum and infrastructure development.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Further details of this can be found at: https://www.makersempire.com/.
References
Asghar, A., Ellington, R., Rice, E., Johnson, F., & Prime, G. (2012). Supporting STEM education in secondary science contexts. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 6(2), 85–125.
Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2012). The Australian Curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/technologies/design-and-technologies/.
Barton, A., Tan, E., & Greenberg, D. (2017). The Makerspace movement: sites of possibilities for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM. Teachers College Record, 119, 1–44.
Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and promises of making in science education. Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 75–103.
Braha, D., & Reich, Y. (2003). Topological structures for modeling engineering design processes. Research in Engineering Design, 14, 185–219.
Brears, L., MacIntrye, B., & O’Sullivan, G. (2011). Preparing teachers for the 21st century using PBL as an integrated strategy in science and technology education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(1), 36–46.
Bybee, R. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher (Sept.), pp. 30-35.
Bybee. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. National Science Teachers’ Association. Arlington: NSTA Press.
Bower, M., Stevenson, M., Falloon, G.W., Forbes, A., & Hatzigianni, M. (2018). Makerspaces in primary school settings: Advancing 21st century and STEM capabilities using 3D design and 3D printing. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University. Retrieved from https://dern.acer.org/dern/ict-research/page/makerspaces-inprimary-school-settings.
Erdogan, N., & Bozeman, T. (2015). Models of project-based learning for the 21st century. In A. Sahin (Ed.), A practice-based model of STEM teaching (pp. 31–42). Rotterdam: Sense.
Fierst, K., Diefenthaler, A., & Diefenthaler, G. (2011). Design thinking for educators. Riverdale: IDEO.
Gilbert, J. (2017). Educational makerspaces: disruptive, educative or neither. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, 14(2), 80–98.
Gwet, K. (2012). Handbook of inter-rater reliability (3rd editon). Advanced Analytics: Gaithersburg.
Heckman, J., & Kautz, T. (2012). Hard evidence on soft skills. Labour Economics, 19, 451–464.
Henriksen, D. (2017). Creating STEAM with design thinking: beyond STEM and arts integration. The STEAM Journal, 3(1), 1–11.
Hira, A., Joslyn, C., & Hynes, M. (2014). Classroom makerspaces: identifying the opportunities and challenges. In M. Cardella, R. Meier, & A. Pears (Eds.), Proceedings of the frontiers in education conference (pp. 404–409). Madrid: IEEE Computer Society Retrieved from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7044263.
Holmlund, T., Lesseig, K., & Slavit, D. (2018). Making sense of STEM education in K-12 contexts. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(32), 1–18.
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: status, prospects and an agenda for research. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
Hsu, Y., Baldwin, S., & Ching, Y. (2017). Learning through making and maker education. Technology Trends, 61, 589–594.
Johns, G., & Mentzer, N. (2016). STEM integration through design and inquiry. Technology and Engineering Teacher, Nov, 13–17.
Keune, A., Peppler, K., & Wohlwend, K. (2019). Recognition in makerspaces: Supporting opportunities for women and “make” a STEM career. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 368–380.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
Marshall, J., & Harron, J. (2018). Making learners: a framework for evaluating making in STEM education. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 12(2), Article 2. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1749
Mohr-Schroeder, M., Cavalcanti, M., & Blyman, K. (2015). STEM education: understanding the changing landscape. In A. Sahin (Ed.), A practice-based model of STEM teaching (pp. 3–14). Rotterdam: Sense.
Morrison, J., McDuffie, A., & French, B. (2015). Identifying key concepts of teaching and learning in a STEM school. School Science and Mathematics, 115(5), 244–255.
Niederhauser, D., & Schrum, L. (2016). Enacting STEM education for digital age learners: the maker movement goes to school. In D. Sampson, J. Spector, D. Ifenthaler, & P. Isaisa (Eds.), CELDA 2016 conference: Cognition and exploratory learning in the digital age (pp. 357–360). Mannheim: International Association for Development of the Information Society ISBN 9789898533555.
Office of the Chief Scientist. (2016). Australia’s STEM workforce: science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Canberra: Australian Government Retrieved from https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Australias-STEM-workforce_full-report.pdf.
Ortega, V. (2017). Increasing STEM exposure in K-5 schools through makerspace use: a multi-site early success case study (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles). Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5j3859cf
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.
Roberts, A. (2012). A justification for STEM education. Technology and Engineering Teacher (May-June), 1-5.
Sanders, M. (2012). Integrative STEM education and “best practice”. In H. Middleton (Ed.), Explorations of best practice in technology, design & engineering education (Vol. 2, pp. 103–117). Queensland: Griffith Institute for Educational Research.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sterelny, K. (2004). Externalism, epistemic artefacts and the extended mind. In R. Schantz (Ed.), The externalist challenge: new studies on cognition and intentionality (pp. 239–254). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., & Roehrig, G. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34.
Techakosit, S., & Nilsook, P. (2018). The development of STEM literacy using the learning process of scientific imagineering through AR. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13(1), 230–238.
von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation: unlocking the mystery of tacit knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wieman, C. (2012). Applying new research to improve science education. Issues in Science and Technology, 29(1), 25–32.
Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 12–19.
Funding
This study was funded in part by an AusIndustry Innovation Connections Grant, the NSW Department of Education, and Makers Empire Pty Ltd.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethics
Ethical clearance for this study was granted by the author’s university HREC.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was secured from all participants in this study.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A Data sources, descriptions, contributors and items analysed.
Source | Description | Number of teacher contributors | Items analysed |
---|---|---|---|
Questionnaire | Post intervention likert/short response questionnaire. This explored teachers’ makerspaces teaching confidence levels, understanding of teaching and learning in makerspaces (pedagogy), views on student learning outcomes, and factors affecting the delivery of their makerspaces unit. | 21 teachers | Short response questions |
Edmodo blog | A blog was established using Edmodo, that was facilitated by the workshop leader. Teachers could seek advice, ask questions and share ideas with the workshop leader, and other teachers. | 13 teachers | Teacher posts (brief statements) |
Artefacts and designs | The 3D-printed artefacts students produced during the units. Students’ portfolios (records of the evolution of their designs recorded by the 3D app) were accessed. | 15 students | Student work samples; access to design portfolios |
Lesson observations | Research team members completed lesson observations in classrooms, using a standard schedule focusing on student learning, engagement and learning task design. | 24 | Observation schedules |
Student focus groups | Small group interviews (2–3 students) focusing on outcomes, behaviours, challenges and views on Making. | 34 students | Transcripts (recorded audio: 8–22 minutes each) |
Teacher focus groups | Group interviews (3–8 teachers) focusing on outcomes, pedagogy, challenges/opportunities, changes to practice. | 23 teachers | Transcripts (recorded audio: 22–32 minutes each) |
Teacher lesson reflections | Personal reflective logs structured around learning design, pedagogy/teaching strategies, challenges and issues, positive outcomes, future intentions. | 22 teachers | Brief reflective statements |
Work samples | Planning, timetables, presentations, unit resources, other. | 5 | Teacher-prepared materials |
Appendix B Themes, primary codes and descriptors by author.
Emergent theme | Primary code (STEM attribute) | Descriptor | Authors |
---|---|---|---|
STEM capabilities, skills and dispositions | Higher order thinking Critical thinking | Develops higher order cognitive processes: analysis, synthesis, evaluation, creation Motivates complex thinking | Brears et al. (2011) Henriksen (2017) Morrison et al. (2015) |
Original and creative thinking Divergent thinking Inventive thinking (offering alternative explanations) | Provides opportunities to exercise and encourages diverse, non-conventional and imaginative thinking | Madden, Baxter, Beauchamp, Bouchard, Habermas, Ladd, Pearon & Plague (2013) Honey et al. (2014) Roberts (2012) | |
Independent decision making Self-managing/autonomous Self-monitoring/self-regulating | Builds confidence and independence Supports personal organisation and self-management Develops personal reflection and evaluation Encourages informed participation and engagement | Bybee (2010) Madden et al. (2013) | |
Growth mindset Risk taking Suspending judgement Showing flexibility Ownership/empowerment Concern for people and place | Fosters positive attitudes towards new ideas and informed risk taking Accepts mistakes and promotes learning from failure Encourages personal identification with, and ownership of projects Promotes conclusions as tentative and subject to change Encourages consideration of the impact of innovation on people, resources and environment | Bevan (2017) Madden et al. (2013) Honey et al. (2014) | |
STEM curriculum and pedagogy | Builds STEM (and other) knowledge Interdisciplinary Problem-focused Project-based Authentic | Supports learning in the STEM (and other) subjects Integrates multiple knowledges and skills Is problem, need or opportunity based Promotes co-constructed curriculum Uses ‘real world’ scenarios as contexts for learning Has a real purpose and audience/s | Asghar et al. (2012) Madden et al. (2013) Honey et al. (2014) Sanders (2012) Vongkulluksn, Matewos, Sinatra & Marsh (2018) Hira et al. (2014) |
Student-centred Modelling Instructing Facilitating Partnerships Expert teacher Mentor | Student-focused learning approaches Builds student agency and responsibility for learning Encourages collaboration, communication and interaction Teachers as content knowledge experts Active teacher engagement, monitoring and instruction Teachers as advisors, guides, mentors and coaches Employs open, divergent and probing questioning Teachers as designers of appropriate and supportive learning environments Fosters development of research and inquiry skills and dispositions Fosters development of partnerships (internal and external) | Madden et al. (2013) Bevan (2017) Land (2013) Quinn & Bell (2013) Marshall and Harron (2018) Capraro & Jones (2013) | |
Collaboration Communication Knowledge exchange Teamwork | Develops and strengthens teamwork Supports knowledge sharing and exchange Builds and utilises knowledge networks Provides opportunities for sharing and promoting outcomes to stakeholders Encourages inter and intra-group talk | Bybee (2010) Morrison et al. (2015) | |
Design thinking principles | Design thinking principles applied in the development of project outcomes | Henriksen (2017) Hong, Lin & Chen (2019) Johns & Mentzer (2016) | |
STEM literacy | Knowledge, skills, capabilities, dispositions and ethical elements supporting an individual’s productive engagement with STEM issues and practices, and enabling further learning in STEM | Develops STEM literacy. A ‘STEM literate’ individual: • can develop STEM discipline knowledge and use that knowledge to identify issues, acquire new knowledge, and solve problems; • understands the characteristics of STEM endeavour, including inquiry, design and evaluation; • recognises how STEM disciplines shape our intellectual activity and social, material and cultural worlds; • engages with STEM-related issues and disciplines as a constructive and concerned citizen. (from Bybee 2010) | Mohr-Schroeder et al. (2015) National Science Board (2015) National Science Foundation (1996) Office of the Chief Scientist (2016) Zeidler (2016) Holmlund et al. (2018) Techakosit and Nilsook (2018) |
Appendix C Sample excerpts, keywords and phrases used in coding.
Theme | Primary code (STEM attribute) | Excerpts, keywords, phrases and synonyms used in coding | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
STEM capabilities, skills and dispositions | Higher order thinking Critical thinking | Critical thinking Reflect(ing) Make design (more) effective/practical/ functional | Problem solving Review(ing) Analyse(ing) Appraise(ing) Justify | Explain(ing) Verbalise reasoning Refining Thinking how to improve | Evaluate(ing) (against success criteria) Make (constructive) feedback |
Original and creative thinking Divergent thinking Inventive thinking (offering alternative explanations) | Think differently Invent(ing) Innovative(ion) Solve problems in a new way | New Divergent/different (ways & thinking) Imaginative(ion) | Original Alternative (ways) Unique ‘Outside the square’ | Creative (ideas/thoughts) Verbalise reasons Explain (why) | |
Independent decision making Self-managing/autonomous Self-monitoring/self-regulating | ‘I can do it (on my own…)’ Managing self Self-direction Guide their own design ‘Sort it out’ themselves | Independence Autonomy(ous) Planning/self-organisation (student) Prioritise(ation) Choice | Independent Students can do it/driven by students Contribute(ion) ‘Plan of Action’ ‘Driven by them’ | Confident Teacher guides/‘takes a step back’ Participate(ion) Self-determining(ation) By themselves | |
Growth mindset Risk taking Suspending judgement Showing flexibility Ownership/empowerment Consideration of people and place | Resilient(ce) Failure as a ‘stepping-stone’ Celebrate problems Pride Explore(ation) ‘Give it a go’ | Persevere(ance) (Make) mistakes Not (upset, scared, worried) if it didn’t work Investigate(ion) Didn’t give up | (Keep) trying ‘We can have a go’ (Learn from) mistakes Make mistakes (and learn from them) ‘Stick at it’ Endurance | (Take) risks ‘We can do it’ Achievement Effect(s) (of decisions) Valued ‘Try new ways’ | |
STEM curriculum and pedagogy | Builds STEM (and other) knowledge Interdisciplinary Problem-focused Project-based Authentic | Learning designed to solve problem(s) Context(ual) Holistic (one topic with many ‘parts’) Project Learning as a whole Thematic | Real life Real world Authentic Task(s) oriented Relevant (to the ‘real world’) Drawing together (subjects) | Purpose(ful) Open-ended Need-based (driven) Ongoing/continue(ity) Learning content (subject) knowledge) Provide (direct) knowledge Content knowledge | Genuine Solution finding Integrated Recognise (use) existing knowledge Teach (knowledge) |
Student-centred Modelling Facilitating Partnerships Mentor | New approach to teaching Relaxed environment Co-constructed Student responsibility Students as teachers Mentoring | Child-directed/centred Teacher ‘hands it over’ Guide/support Scaffold(ing) Flexible(ity) Model(ling) | Student freedom/choice ‘Sets students up for success’ Constructivist methods ‘Step back’ Demonstration | Independent learning Facilitates(or) Open questioner/ prompter Demonstrate(ing) Peer mentoring (Invite/share) parents (caregivers) | |
Collaboration Communication Knowledge exchange Teamwork | Help(ing) (from teacher, peers, parents or sibling) Collegiality Dialogue Giving and receiving feedback Discussing | Learning from (or helping) each other Teams/groups Collaborating(ion) Negotiation(ing) Agreeing (agreement) Working out (who does what) | Working together Working off each other Teamwork Share(ing) ideas ‘On the journey together’ Networking | ‘Pull(ing) together’ Brainstorming as group Present(ing) Cooperating Showcasing Organising | |
Design thinking principles | Improve(ment) Design thinking/‘process’ Constructivist approach Design cycle Create(ing) product (etc.) | Redesign Success criteria Adapt(ing) Modify(ing) Revise(ing) | Refine original (initial) design Change(ing) Hands-on Change(ing) | (re)Develop(ing) Test(ing) Adjust(ing) Alter(ing) |
Appendix D Examples of data aligned with themes, primary codes and sources.
Row | Theme | Primary code (STEM attributes) | Data source | Sample data |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | STEM capabilities, skills and dispositions | Higher order thinking Critical thinking | Lesson observation (field notes) | He talks to his design (a student) = internal thinking processes. He even makes movements with his hands in the air before actually putting his fingers on the iPad. It looks like he is thinking and trying out his design before using the app. |
2 | Teacher focus group | Providing that constructive feedback for each other and actually having to explain why they had changed their designs. So, I think it really, I guess… call it critical thinking . Learning how to verbalise their reasons for making these changes. …whereas now, as Katie said, the feedback that they are giving their peers on what worked, what did not work. | ||
3 | Reflective journal | Students learning to verbalise reasoning , considering how to modify designs to be practical and effective. High levels of collaboration, risk taking and refinement of designs. Students were also presented with the challenge of presenting critical feedback in a positive manner - promoting the development of reflective students. | ||
4 | Original and creative thinking Solving problems Divergent thinking Inventive thinking (offering alternative explanations) | Post survey | The importance of letting students guide their own design and creativity to problems. Looking at solving problems a new way . | |
5 | Reflective journal | … and I’ve got one boy in particular who struggles with writing, struggles with reading, cannot communicate well with others. He′s just one of those little children. And it gave him an opportunity to think differently , and to kind of thrive in a different kind of environment. Students were engaged in critical and creative thinking as they applied what they already knew about hermit crabs from last week, with what they researched this week to design the tank. …well, look at you go. Just being able to thrive with a different way of thinking that he’d struggle with otherwise. | ||
6 | Student focus group Student artefact evaluation | We made a cubby house. Inside we made some kitchen so we can cook inside. And also on the second floor, we have three floors, the second floor we have a pool. And a bedroom so we can relax in the bedroom and go to sleep…and we have extra swimming clothes… and on the third level we have a garden so people can plant food and we have a soccer area. | ||
7 | Independent decision making Self-managing/autonomous Self-monitoring/self-regulating | Teacher focus group | It was incredible to see what they could figure out themselves… just by playing around with the app and then share with their peers, rather than me keeping them all together , and going to go through it one step at a time. I found I stepped back a lot more than I would normally , that I was a lot freer… they were more independent . Yes, I found something that really amazed me was their ability to refine their designs by themselves. With things earlier in the year, it was: My work’s finished, we are done! | |
8 | Growth mindset Risk taking Suspending judgement Showing flexibility Ownership/empowerment Concern for people and place | Reflective journal | Students taking more risks , having a go with the app and beginning to identify some problems along the way that they may need to solve. Encouraged collaboration and risk-taking… …you go and try to work it out* | |
9 | Student focus group | I learnt about when we make mistakes, we can just make another one . We can design clothes in the Maker’s Empire and we can ask people, do you like these coloured clothes, and if they say yes, we can make the clothes. | ||
10 | Teacher focus group | Not one child in my class got upset that they had a hole in their boat… they knew, this is either going to work or not, but they were not that upset if it did not… so their failures were seen more as like a stepping stone than a disaster. We had a little discussion just last week about difficulties they were having with the app and who had a solution for the difficulty, and he was busting, absolutely busting to answer the question and he just eloquently put it together in these sentences that I’ve not heard him speak before. So, a few of my lower-ability kids, I found their confidence improved a lot. And they came up with really fantastic, exciting ideas, and that increased the excitement and engagement. | ||
11 | STEM curriculum and pedagogy | Builds STEM (and other) knowledge | Reflective journal | Metalanguage - platform, scale, resize, embed, view, rotation. Spatial awareness - size and placements of shapes and objects . Problem solving - how to place objects flat on top of each other. Building up the background knowledge required and setting them up for success. That children learn through experimentation, guidance and enjoyment* Ultimately, the boats were all a similar size and shape, and it was questionable whether all students could correctly identify the factors that would make their boat float or sink and link these to actual scientific principles. |
12 | Post survey | I have been adapting the Gruffalo plan from Maker Empire to suit the other activities and where my students are at for Literacy. | ||
13 | Teacher focus group | And because we’d gone out before and had a go at making a boat out of foil… I just think that they had a much better context and background science knowledge that they would not have had otherwise. The process from problem solving through to the design and make process including the use of the Makers Empire app and the 3D printers * I started the lesson off by reminding the class about our Science lesson last week where we went to the outdoor Makerspace and experimented with things that float or do not float - first natural materials , and then man-made materials. Instead of just talking about vocabulary we did a mind map of the story, including details of characters, setting, plot, main idea and author’s purpose. They were also developing their spatial awareness skills using the app. | ||
14 | Interdisciplinary Problem-focused Project-based Authentic | Reflective journal | … design thinking process - have not looked carefully at it before other than in the context of project based learning.* Teachers had a problem of losing the keys and needed a solution. We suggested possible ideas and solutions , discussing advantages and disadvantages of each idea, and finally voting on the best solution... to create a personalised name tag for each teacher!* We need our children to be hands on, problem solvers , able to investigate, make predictions, design, plan and be part of their learning process.* …approaching real life problems rather than teaching the concept as it is... Learning about Makerspaces and more about Constructivism approaches to learning. I really found this beneficial and very relevant in terms of how pedagogy needs to develop to meet the needs of today’s learners. | |
15 | Student-centred Modelling Instructing Facilitating Partnerships Expert teacher Mentor | Teacher focus group | I found having a really relaxed environment when we did it, no structure about where they were sitting or working … they felt really free to just go and ask a friend or work together and do whatever they needed to do. It worked well.* …and then I gave a lot of student choice , and that worked really well because there are some characters that are quite colourful in my class. Today we had our STREAM showcase afternoon where we invited the parents to come in to our classroom and see what we had been learning about. They were a little bit like teachers . I could step back a little bit, and I had a few other little teachers in the room that would run around and show the others. So, it was really good that students were becoming peer coaches themselves, which encouraged them on a deeper level. So, that was really good to see in my class. The session facilitated a lot of peer mentoring which was nice to see amongst the students. | |
16 | Reflective journal | I found I stepped back a lot more than I would normally, that I was a lot freer, and sort of less planned… it was really driven by them and where they were going with it.* | ||
17 | Lesson observation (field notes) | Questioning - asking students before they recorded their questions for their surveys to share some ideas* | ||
18 | Post survey | …asking open ended questions and scaffolding their thinking (e.g. you have to think how big the Teddy is… she encourages them to ‘use the design you already have and improve it’ = constructivist approach/strengthening creativity* | ||
19 | Teachers’ planning | Resources: A Home for Hermit Crab by Eric Carle - BBC ‘Amazing Crabs’ video | ||
20 | Collaboration Communication Knowledge exchange Team work | Reflective journal | And it was really good to see them just working in groups , designing it, talking about what features they wanted in their characters.* Some students did not have that much experience using iPads and the apps, whereas other students did. So, it was good to see that students who had more experience were, you know, guiding them and teaching them , sharing their knowledge, as opposed to me giving them feedback. And it was incredible to see what they could figure out just by playing around with the app and then share with their peers , rather than me keeping them all together , and we are going to go through it one step at a time. Students watched closely as their peers demonstrated . They were more engaged watching their peers than the tutorial. | |
21 | Post survey | T emphasis on teamwork B. Need to reach a decision as a team . Emphasis on talking and listening to each other .* | ||
22 | Teacher focus group | Discussing with peers about problems and successes… collegiality, and working on problems together. | ||
23 | Student focus group | I did the face…yes, she did the face over here, and I did the ears. And she did the little body… we worked together. | ||
24 | Design thinking principles | Post survey | It helps teachers to understand the process of designing and making and how to structure learning experiences in the Makerspace. The design process … and how to encourage students to use design to solve a problem* . Design process - have not looked carefully at it before… and in the context of project-based learning.* The design thinking process and how to implement it | |
25 | Teacher focus group | What can I do now to improve it so that it does meet the success criteria of a boat. And seeing them be able to go back to the original design: What do I do? Yes… something that really amazed me was their ability to refine their designs. With things earlier in the year, it was: My work’s finished, we are done. Whereas now the feedback that they are giving their peers on what worked, what did not work.* | ||
26 | Reflective journal | Before we went to the Makerspace I asked the class to help me come up with some criteria to test our boats against . As a class we came up with: 1. Does it have any holes? 2. Can it float? 3. Can it float for 5 minutes? 4. Can it hold a plastic teddy bear? Students beginning to plan their design but also make modifications along the way, and learning how to verbalise their reasons for making these changes.* Some groups had finished and were testing their object in the hermit crabs tank to see if it worked and using the success criteria to check if it needed any modifications . The technology helped with this.* |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Falloon, G., Forbes, A., Stevenson, M. et al. STEM in the Making? Investigating STEM Learning in Junior School Makerspaces. Res Sci Educ 52, 511–537 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09949-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09949-3