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

Full Text

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 25, 2023 from .

© 2017 Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

References

View References & Citations Map
  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. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

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.

Also Read

Related Collections