Effect of Makerspace Professional Development Activities on Elementary & Middle School Educator Perceptions of Integrating Technologies with STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)

Jennifer Horner MillerPhD Dissertation Summer 2016 DefenseUniversity of North Texas

Why?

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of professional development on educators’ perceptions and confidence levels toward STEM and technology integration.

Significance & Impact of STEM Research

Research Questions

1. Does participation in STEM Makerspace professional development activities affect educators’ self-appraisal of competence in technology integration abilities?

H1: Teachers will report an increase in attitudes toward instructional technology  as a result of professional development.  Attitudes towards the integration of technology in instructional activities.

Research Questions2. Does participation in STEM Makerspace professional development activities affect educators’ confidence in integrating new information technology into pedagogical practice?

H2. Teachers will report an increase in confidence levels toward instructional technology.

Research Questions3. Does participation in STEM Makerspace professional development activities affect educator attitudes toward STEM?  

H3. Teachers who participate in a professional development program including targeted STEM professional development will improve their attitudes towards STEM. 

Limitations• The sample of participants represent individuals from north Texas, which may limit generalizability to other locations.

• Participants may already have been exposed to topics surrounding professional development

• Participants might naturally be interested in learning more about makerspace and instructional technology environments.

Literature Review• History of K12 STEM Approaches

Technology Integration Professional Development Approaches Professional Development Models Supporting STEM Integrated Design

• Experimental Learning Communication via Learning Technologies Using Technology to Enhance Hands-On Instruction

• Learning enhances STEM skill sets. Learning Engagement via Media Arts Advantages and Disadvantages Integrating 2D and 3D Technologies

Teacher Perceptions on 2D and 3D Technologies• Future Research Trends

Population • 59 Subjects• Large North Texas Public School District• 3 School Clusters

One Elementary & One Middle School From Each Cluster (Total 6 Schools)

Cohort: Leader, Librarian, 8 Content Teachers

Timeline• Fall 2015 IRB Approval, Marketing, Instructional Design

• January– April 2016 Makerspace Professional Development

• April – June 2016 Data Analysis and Writing• Summer 2016 Final Dissertation Submitted to Faculty

Instrumentation 1. Does participation in STEM Makerspace professional development activities affect educators’ self-appraisal of competence in technology integration abilities?

H1: Teachers will report an increase in attitudes toward instructional technology  as a result of professional development.  Attitudes towards the integration of technology in instructional activities.

Stages of Adoption of Technology (Christensen &

Knezek, 1999)

Instrumentation 2. Does participation in STEM Makerspace professional development activities affect educators’ confidence in integrating new information technology into pedagogical practice? H2. Teachers will report an increase in confidence levels toward instructional technology.

Technology Proficiency Self-Assessment for 21st Century Learning (TPSA)

(Ropp, 1999) (Christensen & Knezek, 2015) 

Instrumentation 3. Does participation in STEM Makerspace professional development activities affect educator attitudes toward STEM?  H3. Teachers who participate in a professional development program including targeted STEM professional development will improve their attitudes towards STEM.

STEM Semantics Survey (Tyler-Wood, Knezek, & Christensen, 2010)  

Location

Sequence of EventsJanuary 2016: Pretest Building Makerspace Experiences

Experience learning in a makerspace environment. Learn about different approaches towards designing makerspace

environments. Connect with public library makerspace programs.

February 2016:Design Thinking

Understand the design thinking process. Identify future ready initiatives. Define and design a school innovation space. Create a design challenge.

Sequence of EventsJan. - March 2016: Project Based Learning Canvas Online Course• Design Makerspace environment using free resources that

incorporates a Project Based Learning workshop model.• Use a STEAM (science, technology, engineering, art, and math)

approach to map discovery learning experiences to core content needs.

• Consider how to transform classrooms and schools for 21st century learners through design.

Canvas Project Based Learning Online Course

Sequence of EventsMarch - April 2016:Learning in 3D

• Explore a variety of 3D learning technologies within a makerspace environment to include 3D printing, augmented reality iOS application, and virtual reality. • Develop an understanding as to how to apply curriculum core connections (science, mathematics, social studies, and ELA) integrating a 3D technology. • Consider what types of 3D technologies your campus makerspace might want to pursue.

Data Analysis Procedures

Data Analysis Population• Out of 59 subjects, 51 (86.4%) were identified as females and 8 (13.6%) as males.

Occupation

  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Leaders 11 18.6 18.6 18.6

Teachers 48 81.4 81.4 100.0

Total 59 100.0 100.0  

School

  Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Campus

ID

44: Middle

Low Income

10 16.9 16.9 16.9

46: Middle

High Income

12 20.3 20.3 37.3

47: Middle

Middle Income

9 15.3 15.3 52.5

118 Elementary

Middle Income

9 15.3 15.3 67.8

119 Elementary

Low Income

10 16.9 16.9 84.7

121 Elementary

High Income

9 15.3 15.3 100.0

Total 59 100.0 100.0  

Data Analysis: Research Question One

Data Analysis: Research Question One Occupation

ANOVA

  Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Pre_StageofAdoption Between Groups 4.300 1 4.300 5.995 .017

Within Groups 40.886 57 .717    

Total 45.186 58      

StageofAdoption Between Groups .338 1 .338 .746 .392

Within Groups 22.643 50 .453    

Total 22.981 51      

Leaders Higher Teachers

Data Analysis: Research Question One Occupation

  N Mean Std. DeviationPre_StageofAdoption 1 11 5.82 .405

2 48 5.13 .914

Total 59 5.25 .883

StageofAdoption 1 11 5.64 .674

2 41 5.44 .673

Total 52 5.48 .671

Data Analysis: Research Question Two

Paired Samples Correlations

  N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 TPSAFactor1 &

TPSAFactor1PostT

52 .286 .040

Pair 2 TPSAFactor2 &

TPSAFactor2PostT

52 .373 .006

Pair 3 TPSAFactor3 &

TPSAFactor3PostT

52 .541 .000

Pair 4 TPSAFactor4 &

TPSAFactor4PostT

52 .433 .001

Pair 5 TPSAFactor5 &

TPSAFactor5PostT

51 .473 .000

Pair 6 TPSAFactor6 &

TPSAFactor6PostT

51 .359 .010

  df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 TPSAFactor1 - TPSAFactor1PostT 51 .060

Pair 2 TPSAFactor2 - TPSAFactor2PostT 51 .212

Pair 3 TPSAFactor3 - TPSAFactor3PostT 51 .219

Pair 4 TPSAFactor4 - TPSAFactor4PostT 51 .168

Pair 5 TPSAFactor5 - TPSAFactor5PostT 50 .013

Pair 6 TPSAFactor6 - TPSAFactor6PostT 50 .105

Table 5: TPSA Paired Samples T-Test

Emerging Technologies for Student Learning

Data Analysis: Research Question Two Occupation

ANOVA

  Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.TPSAFactor1 Between Groups .118 1 .118 1.087 .301

Within Groups 6.189 57 .109    Total 6.307 58      

TPSAFactor2 Between Groups .247 1 .247 .972 .328Within Groups 14.506 57 .254    Total 14.754 58      

TPSAFactor3 Between Groups 2.774 1 2.774 5.692 .020Within Groups 27.778 57 .487    Total 30.551 58      

TPSAFactor4 Between Groups 1.640 1 1.640 2.563 .115Within Groups 36.462 57 .640    Total 38.102 58      

TPSAFactor5 Between Groups 4.412 1 4.412 4.137 .047Within Groups 60.794 57 1.067    Total 65.207 58      

TPSAFactor6 Between Groups 1.280 1 1.280 4.756 .033Within Groups 15.336 57 .269    Total 16.616 58      

Integrated Applications

Emerging Technologies for Student Learning

Data Analysis: Research Question Two Socio-Economic

ANOVA

  Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.TPSAFactor1PostT Between Groups .118 2 .059 1.207 .308

Within Groups 2.402 49 .049    Total 2.520 51      

TPSAFactor2PostT Between Groups .498 2 .249 3.498 .038Within Groups 3.487 49 .071    Total 3.985 51      

TPSAFactor3PostT Between Groups 1.497 2 .748 1.770 .181Within Groups 20.721 49 .423    Total 22.218 51      

TPSAFactor4PostT Between Groups 1.385 2 .692 1.378 .262Within Groups 24.615 49 .502    Total 26.000 51      

TPSAFactor5PostT Between Groups 2.546 2 1.273 3.398 .042Within Groups 17.983 48 .375    Total 20.529 50      

TPSAFactor6PostT Between Groups .728 2 .364 3.029 .058Within Groups 5.771 48 .120    Total 6.499 50      

Emerging Technologies for Student Learning

World Wide Web

Data Analysis: Research Question Three

Paired Samples Test

 

Paired Differences t  

Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

 

Lower Upper  

Pair 1 Pre_Science_Mean -

S_Mean

-.25000 .78403 .10873 -.46828 -.03172 -2.299 

Pair 2 Pre_M_Mean - M_Mean -.83462 1.68998 .23436 -1.30511 -.36412 -3.561 

Pair 3 Pre_E_Mean - E_Mean -.26538 1.12840 .15648 -.57953 .04876 -1.696 

Pair 4 Pre_T_Mean - T_Mean -.40385 1.12476 .15598 -.71698 -.09071 -2.589 

Pair 5 Pre_C_Mean - C_Mean -.40769 1.43457 .19894 -.80708 -.00831 -2.049 

Pair 6 Pre_StageofAdoption -

StageofAdoption

-.115 .732 .101 -.319 .088 -1.137

 

 

  df Sig. (2-tailed)

 

 

 

Pair 1 Pre_Science_Mean - S_Mean 51 .026  

Pair 2 Pre_M_Mean - M_Mean 51 .001  

Pair 3 Pre_E_Mean - E_Mean 51 .096  

Pair 4 Pre_T_Mean - T_Mean 51 .013  

Pair 5 Pre_C_Mean - C_Mean 51 .046  

Science

Math

Technology STEM Careers

Discussion of Findings • Statically significant finding with Level of Adoptions between leaders versus teachers pretest findings. This suggests that leaders report a higher level of competence in technology integration.

Leadership learning with teachers can impact attitudes towards technology integration for a campus.

• Attitudes towards technology integration did improve for all, with means increasing. However, pre and posttest analysis did not produce statistically significant findings for hypothesis one.

Discussion of Findings• Educators did report an educational significant increase in confidence levels toward instructional technology in the area of emerging technologies for student learning. Makerspace Environment

• Responses analyzed for socio-economic campus background did report an educational significant increase in confidence levels toward instructional technology the the area of world wide web and emerging technologies for student learning. Online Professional Development Makerspace Environment

Discussion of Findings• Teachers who participate in a professional development program including targeted STEM professional development did improve their attitudes towards STEM.

Math, Science, Technology, & STEM Careers Learning in 3D activities STEM career model for makerspace. Perceptions towards science and math did increase for all

participants possibly due to makerspace environment. Teachers still did not improve attitudes towards engineering.

Possibly seen as a separate component or not integrated.

Future Research• Expand to comparison study to further research occupation content

and levels of adoption. Level of Experience

• Significant findings suggest makerspace environment strongly impacted educators’ confidence levels integrating emerging technologies for student learning. Further research needed to explore why.

• Strong educational significant findings exploring attitudes towards STEM suggest need to further study makerspace environments that incorporate hands-on approaches that integrate augmented reality, virtual reality, 3D printing, and origami activities during professional development.

• Impact on student engagement, attitudes towards STEM, and academic achievement as the environment will connect to content.