Making is an iterative process of designing, building, tinkering, and problem-solving, resulting in the creation of personally meaningful artifacts. Fueled by recent developments in affordable, safe, and easy to use digital fabrication technologies, making has been embraced by educators the world over (e.g., Bullock & Sator, 2015; Silva & Merkle, 2017; Wilson & Gobeil, 2017) as well as in the United States (e.g., Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2018; Clapp et al., 2016). Additionally, interest has grown among science and mathematics educators who see the promise of making and the associated maker movement as a means of enhancing K-12 students\u2019 active participation and personal connections (Bevan, 2017; Tofel-Grehl et al., 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While educational scholarship is developing an increasingly complex understanding of the practices and pedagogies needed to support making in the classroom, research associated with the preparation of teachers and the development of their maker-centered instructional practices has been limited. In this embedded case study, we examined artifacts produced by 13 secondary preservice and in-service science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) classroom teachers engaged in long-term maker professional development as part of a microcredentialing program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Analysis of these artifacts provided insight into the ways these teachers approached making, both philosophically and practically, and the emergent opportunities and challenges faced when engaging with maker education are described. Findings can inform teacher preparation programs and professional development offerings that incorporate maker education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The literature in this section describes how making can broaden participation in STEM education, presents perspectives on maker-centered instruction, and suggests personal, lived experiences as an aspect of preparing teachers for making.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Many of the practices of making align closely with the NGSS Science and Engineering Practices (NGSS Lead States, 2013). For example, during the act of making, students have the opportunity to ask questions and define problems, develop and use models, construct explanations and design solutions, and obtain, evaluate, and communicate information about their creations (Rodriguez et al., 2019). Making also supports design thinking<\/em> (Jordan & Lande, 2016), which involves cycles of empathizing, defining problems, ideation, prototyping, and testing. Design thinking can help develop student confidence while also increasing proficiency with various current technologies and tools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition, participation in maker-centered activities can engage students in efforts that align with their interests and sense of themselves (Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014). It can also provide opportunities to develop the habits of mind associated with the maker mindset, such as playfulness, resilience, collaboration, and reflection (Martin, 2015). Thus, the use of making as an approach to STEM education has been recognized by the National Science Foundation (NSF) as having the potential to broaden participation in STEM while also fostering innovation and increasing student retention (NSF, 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Traditionally, the practices of making have thrived in learning environments such as community makerspaces, garages, libraries, and museums (Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2018; Clapp et al., 2016). These informal learning environments allow individuals the freedom to create at their own pace without the constraint of specific guidelines governing their final product. An increasing number of schools are adding open spaces that are dedicated to making, usually referred to as makerspaces or fabrication labs. The culture of curriculum standards, however, often isolates making to after-school programs, extracurricular activities, and nontested subjects (Harron & Hughes, 2018; Peppler et al., 2016), thus reducing access for students and communities outside of those domains. Thus, bringing making into classrooms, which serve students from all walks of life, can expand the reach of making and encourage inclusivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For the practices and technologies of making to thrive, teachers need support in fostering the agency of their students, promoting active participation, and leveraging the cultural resources of the classroom (Bevan, 2017). Thus, more must be done to prepare future STEM classroom teachers to implement these practices. A recent national survey revealed that only 17% of undergraduate teacher preparation programs in the United States had a makerspace available to their preservice teachers and that only about half provided an opportunity to learn about maker-education and the associated technologies (Cohen, 2017). Without maker-based experience as part of their teacher preparation, future STEM educators will likely remain unaware of how these inventive practices can benefit their students.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Grounded in constructionism (Papert, 1991), making promotes knowledge acquisition through the creation and sharing of personally meaningful artifacts. However, no single school of thought exists on what constitutes the instructional practices needed to support making. For example, the use of the previously mentioned design thinking process has been viewed as a method of educating about making (Bowler, 2014). In contrast, Bullock and Sator (2015) proposed four elements of maker pedagogy, including principles of design, artistic creating, ethical hacking, and adapting old devices for new uses. Cohen et al. (2017) proposed \u201cmakification,\u201d which involves teachers integrating maker mindsets (i.e., autonomy, creation, iteration, and sharing) into the formal K-12 classroom context through enhancing existing content-focused lessons and encouraging students to learn content by constructing artifacts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our study focused on making within the bounds of a secondary classroom and facilitated by a content area STEM teacher. Therefore, The Elements of Making (Rodriguez et al., 2018), described in this paper provide a useful framework. In this context, maker-centered instruction is defined as instructional practice that facilitates one or more of these elements (see Appendix A<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Literature suggests that teachers make personal choices about what technology means in the context of their own classrooms and that these choices have important implications for their instructional practices (Ellis et al., 2020). For many educators, making is synonymous with the use of specific technological tools (e.g., 3D printing) rather than the theoretical underpinnings and habits of mind associated with making (Martin, 2015). Therefore, in addition to understanding relevant technologies, teachers must have opportunities to develop a philosophical understanding of maker-centered pedagogies, observe these instructional strategies in practice, implement them in their own lessons, and reflect on the outcomes. Thus, providing personal, lived classroom experiences for maker educators is essential in providing teachers with an occasion to apply theory-to-practice as they think like a teacher and enact teacher identities (Hammerness et al., 2005; Jones & Woglom, 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Providing teachers with lived making experiences is central to understanding their perspectives on making and uncovering the barriers they face. For example, Jones et al. (2017) investigated preservice teachers\u2019 beliefs about formal making activities in K-12 settings. They found that the hands-on nature of the learning allowed for differentiated practices that may inspire longer retention. In enacting these activities with students, they found that making shifted the focus away from the teacher, which allowed for more student-centered teaching strategies. The authors also identified limitations of implementing these strategies posed by the internal barriers of the teachers\u2019 belief in their own abilities and technical knowledge and the external barriers of time constraints, access to maker technologies, and state standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The study featured in this article used qualitative analysis to examine artifacts produced by 13 preservice and in-service secondary STEM teachers who have engaged in long-term maker professional development as part of a university microcredentialing program. In this program each teacher created an open portfolio that documented their experience. This study specifically examined the content of two required sections within this portfolio, Maker Philosophy and Maker Education, and addressed the following research questions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n UTeach Maker (https:\/\/maker.uteach.utexas.edu\/<\/a>) is an optional microcredentialing program that is part of the UTeach STEM teacher preparation program at The University of Texas. It provides professional development and support for preservice and early career in-service teachers, as they develop the knowledge, skills, and community connections needed to support maker activities in the secondary STEM classroom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the program, teachers are provided with a maker mentor, maker-centered professional development, support for maker lessons and projects, and access to local makerspaces and they become part of a community via monthly cohort meetings and weekend workshops. To earn their microcredential, each teacher must complete an open portfolio over a minimum of two academic semesters. The portfolio is a public website, called a Maker Showcase, that serves as a digital online archive of their work in making.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The goal of the Maker Showcase is for teachers to create a personal expression of their maker journey that can be shared with others and serve as a tool for ongoing reflection. The Maker Showcase includes four documented areas: Maker Philosophy, Maker Project, Maker Community, and Maker Education. Teachers are responsible for providing evidence for each area, including photos, blog posts, personal reflections, or other products that reflect their progress or ideas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A description of the purpose, requirements, and rubric can be found at https:\/\/maker.uteach.utexas.edu\/what-maker-showcase<\/a>. At the end of a teacher\u2019s time in the program, the Maker Showcase is submitted for external review and presented publicly to the community. Sample showcases can be found at https:\/\/maker.uteach.utexas.edu\/uteach-maker-fellows-showcase-examples<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n As of fall 2019, the program had served 45 preservice and in-service teachers. Twenty had completed the program, and program enrollment at that time was 22 preservice teachers, three in-service teachers, and a waiting list of others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This research study focused on 13 participants who had earned their microcredential by the end of spring 2018. Table 1 provides demographics of the participants that were the subject of this study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 1<\/strong> Participant Demographics (13 total)<\/p>\n\n\n\n As an embedded case study (Yin, 2003), the unit of analysis centered on the Maker Showcase produced by each participant. Data for this research study included two out of the four sections of the Maker Showcase, (a) Maker Philosophy and (b) Maker Education, more specifically, artifacts generated as part of a maker-centered lesson enacted in a K-12 classroom. We compared these two sections to gain insight into the ways in which participants translated their ideas about making, as represented in their philosophies on classroom action in their showcase lessons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Maker Philosophy section promotes an understanding of the educational and ideological roots that underlie maker-centered learning. It encourages participants to explore the origins of making as a pedagogical tool in the context of other student-centered orientations, like constructivism and constructionism. In the Maker Philosophy section, participants are asked to reflect on making from both historical and cultural perspectives. In this section, participants also articulate a personal philosophy of making and provide a rationale for the integration of making into their instructional practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Maker Education section asks participants to make connections between personally meaningful making and K-12 education. As part of this section, participants had to describe and upload artifacts in support of a maker-centered lesson they had enacted in a K-12 STEM setting. Artifacts included a lesson plan, handouts, slides, samples of student work, and lesson reflections. This set of lesson artifacts served as the data source for analysis. Thus, in the following sections this body of work, taken together, will be referred to as the showcase lesson.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 2 provides contextual information, at the time of the study, for the 13 participants. The 11 preservice teachers in this study designed and taught their showcase lesson during their student teaching semester. The two in-service teachers taught the showcase lesson in their own classrooms. All showcase lessons represented first iterations, and lesson reflections provided important insight into the experience of the participants and their ideas for next steps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 2<\/strong> Description of Participants<\/p>\n\n\n\n Qualitative techniques were used to analyze the participants\u2019 Maker Philosophy sections and showcase lessons. For both, a team of three researchers used The Elements of Making matrix as a coding framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Prior to coding, all Maker Philosophy text and Showcase Lesson files were copied from the Maker Showcase websites and saved as Rich Text Format (RTF) to enhance compatibility with the online coding platform Dedoose. Data were analyzed in two cycles following the guidelines by Miles et al., (2014).<\/p>\n\n\n\n During the first cycle, all three researchers independently coded two of the participants using deductive coding based on the The Elements of Making matrix. An iterative data-driven process was used to establish additional codes as they emerged from the data (as in DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2011). All three researchers met to debrief, which included comparing and discussing our independently coded data, and verifying, modifying, and refining codes until agreement was met.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Interrater reliability was measured using Fleiss\u2019 Kappa, which was .764 where observed agreement was .871 and expected agreement was .455. This ratio is considered substantial agreement (Fleiss et al., 2003). From that point, remaining data were distributed amongst the three researchers to ensure that each data source was coded by at least two researchers. During the second cycle of analysis, data were constantly compared and reanalyzed for new codes, categories, and emergent themes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to these qualitative coding techniques, the Showcase Lesson materials were coded using binary presence-absence coding (i.e., present = 1, absent = 0) to identify if participants included The Elements of Making in their lessons. Quantifying the data in this way allowed us to establish mean scores for individual participants and individual criteria for each element. Interrater reliability between the three coders was measured using Fleiss\u2019 Kappa, which was .631, where observed agreement was .722 and expected agreement was .247. This ratio is considered substantial agreement (Fleiss et al., 2003). As part of the analysis, coding frequencies were compared between each participants\u2019 Maker Philosophy and showcase lesson so we could better understand the theory-to-practice connection in what they said about making and what they did when enacting maker-centered instruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our first research question focused on participant motivations for engaging in making and wanting to bring it to their classrooms. Why would teachers add to an already heavy workload to embark on a year-long professional development journey? Why would they work to change their own teaching practice and often go against the culture of the schools where they teach? An analysis of the Maker Philosophy sections for each participant provided insight. This section described several different motivations for making that emerged across the data (see Table 3). While some participants emphasized one aspect more than others, the themes highlighted here were common across all the maker statements.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaker-Centered Instruction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Preparing Teachers for Maker-Centered Instruction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Methods<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Context<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Participants<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n
\n\t Teaching Status<\/strong><\/th> Gender<\/strong><\/th> Ethnicity<\/strong><\/th> Teaching Discipline<\/strong><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n\t 11 (85%) Pre-service
\n 2 (15%) In-service<\/td>9 (69%) Female
\n 4 (31%) Male<\/td>7 (54%) White
\n 4 (31%) Hispanic
\n 2 (15%) Asian<\/td>4 (31%) Biology
\n 3 (23%) Chemistry
\n 3 (23%) Mathematics
\n 2 (15%) Physics
\n 1 (8%) Engineering<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\nData Sources<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n
\n\t Participant Name<\/strong>
\n Teaching Status\/Discipline <\/th>Showcase Lesson Description<\/strong> <\/strong><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n\t Erin
\n Preservice\/Biology<\/td>Biology students play a game that models natural selection. Students use a plastic egg to make an organism, representing their adaptations.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Mariana
\n Preservice\/Biology <\/td>Biology students make quilt squares on genetics concepts with craft materials, copper tape, and LEDs. Squares combine to form a collaborative paper quilt. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Holly
\n Preservice\/Chemistry<\/td>Chemistry students work as an independent museum professional and to design a series of exhibits about water and its properties. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Adam
\n Preservice\/Physics <\/td>Physics students build a base car using wooden parts, collide cars, and must redesign cars based in challenges related to momentum. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Kevin
\n Preservice\/Chemistry<\/td>Chemistry students build a model of the electron cloud using LEDs wired in parallel and breadboards.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Alaina
\n Preservice\/Chemistry <\/td>Chemistry students work in groups to make a website that they can share with others to educate them about an ecological issue of their choice. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Mia
\n Preservice\/Mathematics<\/td>Algebra 1 students create their own measurement system and use it to measure objects and convert between their system and the standardized systems. <\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Noah
\n Preservice\/Engineering <\/td>Engineering students work in teams to create a compound machine designed to accomplish a specific mechanical task. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Francisco
\n Preservice\/Physics<\/td>Physics students create an interactive museum exhibit to educate the community about light, sound, and the history behind them. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Esha
\n Preservice\/Biology <\/td>Chemistry students are introduced to making by creating a bar of soap in a chemistry lab and designing their own laser-cut soap dish. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Nickie
\n Preservice\/Mathematics<\/td>7th grade math students make an artifact to represent their understanding of various mathematical concepts using a variety of high- and low-tech tools.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Avery
\n In-service\/Biology <\/td>7th grade life science students to design an interactive 3D model of a plant or animal cell that would be engaging for younger students. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n\t Layla
\n In-service\/Mathematics <\/td>Geometry students use cardboard to make a geometric sculpture that is personally meaningful to them.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n Analysis<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Findings<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Motivation for Engaging in Maker Education<\/h3>\n\n\n\n