Preservice Teachers' Beliefs About Using Maker Activities in Formal K-12 Educational Settings: A Multi-Institutional Study

References

• Agency by Design. (2015). Maker-centered learning and the development of self: Preliminary findings of the Agency by Design project. Retrieved from http://www.agencybydesign.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Maker-Centered-Learning-and-the-Development-of-Self_AbD_Jan-2015.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2
   Google Scholar
• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Orgnizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, C. (2012). Makers: The new industrial revolution. New York, NY: Crown.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, S. E., & Maninger, R. M. (2007). Preservice teachers' abilities, beliefs, and intentions regarding technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(2), 151–172.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry, R. Q., Bull, G., Browning, C., Thomas, C. D., Starkweather, K., & Aylor, J. H. (2010). Preliminary considerations regarding use of digital fabrication to incorporate engineering design principles in elementary mathematics education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 167–172.
   Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1002/sce.21151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevan, B., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2014). Tinkering is serious play. Educational Leadership, 72(4), 28–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and “making” in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Hermann & C. Buching (Eds.), 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
   Google Scholar
• Boise State University. (2016). Making & achieving go hand in hand. EdTech Connection Blog. Retrieved from https://edtech.boisestate.edu/15252-2/
   Google Scholar
• Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008, July). Advancing engineering education in P–12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 369–387. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00985.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, A. (2015). 3D printing in instructional settings: Identifying a curricular hierarchy of activities. TechTrends, 59(5), 16–24. doi:10.1007/s11528-015-0887-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burghardt, D., & Krowles, C. (2006, June). Enhancing mathematics instruction with engineering design. Paper presented at Annual Conference & Exposition. Chicago, IL: American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/497
   Google Scholar
• Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers and Education, 59(3), 1054–1064. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu, S. L., Quek, F., Bhangaonkar, S., Ging, A. B., & Sridharamurthy, K. (2015). Making the maker: A means-to-an-ends approach to nurturing the maker mindset in elementary-aged children. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 5, 11–19. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2015.08.002
   Google Scholar
• Clapp, E. P., Ross, J., Ryan, J. O., & Tishman, S. (2017). Maker-centered learning: Empowering young people to shape their worlds. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1960). Coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. D. (2017). Maker principles and technologies in teacher education: A national survey. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(1), 5–30.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. D., Jones, W. M., Smith, S., & Calandra, B. (2016). Makification: Towards a framework for leveraging the maker movement in formal education. In G. Chamblee & L. Langub (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2016 (pp. 129–135). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dexter, S., Anderson Morgan, M., & Jones, W. M. (2016). Trends in types of and goals for technology usage as teachers increase their technology integration. In L. Liu & D. Gibson (Eds.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education (pp. 61–68). Waynesville, NC: AACE.
   Google Scholar
• Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
   Google Scholar
• Fetterman, D. M. (2010). Ethnography: Step by step. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2008). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
   Google Scholar
• Greaves, M., Zibarras, L. D., & Stride, C. (2013). Using the theory of planned behavior to explore environmental behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 109–120. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 23–34. doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.08.021.Secreted
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Halverson, E., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–505. doi:10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatch, M. (2014). The maker movement manifesto. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
   Google Scholar
• Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school teachers' educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers and Education, 51(4), 1499–1509. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honey, M. A., & Kanter, D. (2013). Introduction. In M. A. Honey & D. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 1–6). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hsu, Y. C., Baldwin, S., & Ching, Y. H. (2017). Learning through making and maker education. TechTrends. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11528-017-0172-6.
   Google Scholar
• Kafai, Y. B., Fields, D. H., & Searle, K. A. (2014). Electronic textiles as disruptive designs: Supporting and challenging maker activities in schools. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 532–556.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katsio-Loudis, P., & Jones, M. (2015). Using computer-aided design software and 3D printers to improve spatial visualization. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 74(8), 14–20.
   Google Scholar
• Kostakis, V., Niaros, V., & Giotitsas, C. (2015). Open source 3D printing as a means of learning: An educational experiment in two high schools in Greece. Telematics and Informatics, 32(1), 118–128. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2014.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lacey, G. (2010). 3D printing brings designs to fife. Tech Directions, 70(2), 17–19.
   Google Scholar
• Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J., Cerreto, F. A., & Lee, J. (2010). Theory of planned behavior and teachers' decisions regarding use of educational technology. Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 152–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 30–39. doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1099
   Google Scholar
• Martinez, S., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/18290
   Google Scholar
• O'Brien, S., Hansen, A. K., & Harlow, D. B. (2016, October 14–16). Educating teachers for the maker movement: Pre-service teachers' experiences facilitating maker activities. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education (pp. 99–102). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/3003397.3003414.
   Google Scholar
• Oliver, K. M. (2016a). Professional development considerations for makerspace leaders, part one: Addressing “what?” and “why?”. TechTrends, 60(2), 160–166. doi:10.1007/s11528-016-0028-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver, K. M. (2016b). Professional development considerations for makerspace leaders, part two: Addressing “how?” TechTrends, 60(3), 211–217. doi:10.1007/s11528-016-0050-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers and Education, 55(3), 1321–1335. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paganelli, A., Cribbs, J. D., Huang, X., Pereira, N., Huss, J., Chandler, W., & Paganelli, A. (2016). The makerspace experience and teacher professional development. Professional Development in Education, 43(2), 1–4. doi:10.1080/19415257.2016.1166448
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22–27. doi:10.1177/003172171309500306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2002). Technology integration: Closing the gap between what preservice teachers are taught to do and what they can do. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 191–203.
   Google Scholar
• Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012a). Exploring factors that predict preservice teachers' intentions to use Web 2.0 technologies using decomposed theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(2), 171–195. doi:10.1080/15391523.2012.10782602
   Google Scholar
• Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012b). Exploring pre-service teachers' beliefs about using Web 2.0 technologies in K–12 classroom. Computers and Education, 59(3), 937–945.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Safhalter, A., Bakracevic Vukman, K., & Glodez, S. (2016). The effect of 3D-modeling training on students' spatial reasoning relative to gender and grade. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(3), 395–406. doi:10.1177/0735633115620430
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers' thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers and Education, 54(1), 103–112. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Standish, N., Christensen, R., Knezek, G., Kjellstrom, W., & Bredder, E. (2016). The effects of an engineering design module on student learning in a middle school science classroom. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 15(6), 156–174. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00905.x
   Google Scholar
• Stanford Design School. (2016). Breaker challenge. Retrieved from http://futureofstuffchallenge.org
   Google Scholar
• Teo, T., Chai, C. S., Hung, D., & Lee, C. B. (2008). Beliefs about teaching and uses of technology among pre-service teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 163–174. doi:10.1080/13598660801971641
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers and Education, 59(1), 134–144. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• University of Wisconsin–Stout. (2016). Online professional development. Retrieved from http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/profdev/maker.cfm
   Google Scholar
• Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (2014). Making and tinkering: A review of the literature. National Research Council Committee on Out of School Time STEM. Retrieved from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_089888
   Google Scholar
• The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2014). Remarks by the President at the White House Maker Faire [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/18/remarks-president-white-house-maker-faire
   Google Scholar