effect of makerspace professional development activities on elementary & middle school educator...
TRANSCRIPT
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.