You are here:

Maker Principles and Technologies in Teacher Education: A National Survey
article

, Georgia State University, United States

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Volume 25, Number 1, ISSN 1059-7069 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

Broadly speaking, the maker movement is characterized by people who engage in the construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of physical artifacts, and who share both the process of making and their physical products with the broader community of makers. There is growing sentiment that elements of the maker movement have the capability of positively impacting student outcomes in K-12 environments. This study reports on the extent to which teacher education programs in the United States have begun to integrate maker principles and technologies, and explores the factors which contribute to their decisions to include or not to include maker elements into their programs. Results indicate that approximately half of teacher education programs have at least some opportunities for undergraduates and graduates to learn about teaching and learning with maker technologies and principles, and there is desire among programs to increase these opportunities, as well as their maker technology infrastructure. There is less institutional-level interest in supporting research agendas related to maker education, however. Therefore, this study calls for a corresponding increase in research on the role of maker principles and technologies in teacher education.

Citation

Cohen, J. (2017). Maker Principles and Technologies in Teacher Education: A National Survey. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(1), 5-30. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved March 24, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and “making” in education: the democratization of invention. In FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors (pp. 1–21). Retrieved from https://tltl.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/documents/publications/2013.Book-B.Digital.pdf
  2. Brahms, L. (2014). Making as a learning process: Identifying and supporting family learning in informal settings (Doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.
  3. Buechley, L. (2013). Thinking about making. Keynote speech presented at FabLearn Conference, Stanford University. Palo alto, Ca.
  4. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.
  5. Cte Makeover Challenge. (2016). Retrieved March 15, 2016, from http://www.ctemakeoverchallenge.com/
  6. Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (Second ed.). New York, nY: John Wiley& Sons.
  7. Leslie, L.L. (1972). Are high response rates essential to valid surveys? Social Maker Principles and Technologies in Teacher Education 25
  8. Lohr, S. (2010). Sampling: Design and analysis (2nd ed.). Boston, Ma: Brooks/ Cole.
  9. Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 30–39.
  10. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teacher College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
  11. Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22–27.., & Regalla, L. (N.D.). The Maker Ed Open Portfolio Project: Survey of Makerspaces, Part I.
  12. Rice, K. (2014). Research and history of policies in K-12 online and blended learning. In R. Ferdig& K. Kennedy (eds.), Handbook of Research on K-12 Online and Blended Learning (pp. 51–82). EtC Press.
  13. Rogelberg, S., & Stanton, J. (2007). Understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 195–209.
  14. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
  15. Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (2014). Making and tinkering: a review of the literature. Retrieved from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/Documents/webpage/dbasse_089888.pdf
  16. Wang, X. (2013). Why students choose stem majors: Motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1081–1121.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Using Informal Learning of Makerspaces to Enhance Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK)

    Candace Figg, Rowsell Jennifer, Welbourn Shannon & Kimberly Pelchat, Brock University, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2018 (Mar 26, 2018) pp. 2037–2040

  2. Teacher Education in the Makerspace: What Might Makerspaces Afford for Teacher Education Programs?

    Josh Corbat, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2018 (Mar 26, 2018) pp. 1255–1259

  3. Engaging Preservice Teachers in the Makerspace: Embracing the Maker Movement in a Multi-Level Teacher Preparation Program

    Josh Corbat & Cassandra Quinn, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2018 (Mar 26, 2018) pp. 1251–1254

  4. Editorial: What we learned about Technology and Teacher Education in 2017

    Natasha H. Chenowith & Richard E. Ferdig, Kent State University, United States

    Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Vol. 25, No. 4 (October 2017) pp. 365–375

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.