Becoming Makers: a Designed-Based Research Study Investigating Curriculum Implementation Through Making
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2019-07-04 Becoming Makers: A Designed-Based Research Study Investigating Curriculum Implementation Through Making Becker, Sandra Lynn Becker, S. L. (2019). Becoming Makers: A Designed-Based Research Study Investigating Curriculum Implementation Through Making (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/110614 doctoral thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Becoming Makers: A Designed-Based Research Study Investigating Curriculum Implementation Through Making by Sandra Lynn Becker A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH CALGARY, ALBERTA JULY, 2019 ©Sandra Lynn Becker 2019 Abstract Educational researchers suggest there is great potential in the implementation of makerspaces as learning environments in formal school settings (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Hira & Hines, 2018; Martin, 2015; Wardrip & Brahms, 2016) My manuscript-based dissertation explores if and how making for learning might be enacted for a teacher and her class within the context of three separate curriculum topics. Each manuscript explores the research data from a different perspective, both pragmatically and theoretically: 1) comparing the figured worlds of makerspace and classroom as learning environment; 2) participants developing ontologically through the exploration of making in the context of STEM curriculum; and 3) participants growing as designers through making. Critical to this work was the selection of participatory design-based research as methodology, underpinned by the theories of constructionism and communities of practice. Through three cycles of making, I sought to answer the following research questions: How can teachers be supported in the development of teacher knowledge, pedagogy, and practice within an elementary school makerspace environment? and How can teachers support the development of students’ conceptual understanding of disciplinary topics in an elementary school makerspace? My goal was to explore how teachers working within classrooms as complex systems and the constraints and opportunities of curriculum topics might adopt making practices to further learning possibilities for their students. Three design principles emerged from the work, those being, 1) teachers, when designing for student learning in makerspaces, must consider that inherent in design iterations are opportunities for sensemaking as well as consequential displays of knowledge; 2) teachers must ii experience and share with students their own experiences of learning through failure; and 3) students must be provided opportunities from start to finish to do the work of professionals. This study focused on one teacher and her class over a year. It is recommended that future research might explore how elementary teachers in multiple school settings and from multiple backgrounds take up making as a way for their students and themselves to learn. iii Preface Chapter 5 of this thesis has been modified slightly and published as: Becker, S. & Jacobsen, M. (2019). “How Can I Build a Model if I Don’t Know the Answer to the Question?”: Developing Student and Teacher Sky Scientist Ontologies Through Making. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-18. doi:10.1007/s10763- 019-09953-8 iv Acknowledgements I am filled with tremendous gratitude for the opportunities provided to me throughout my doctoral journey. The support from the Werklund School of Education has been boundless. From the support staff in the graduate studies office, to the professors with whom I have worked closely to learn about research processes, to those who have simply asked, How is it going? I am in your debt. You created a wonderful atmosphere in which to learn. To my committee, who scaffolded and nudged me, often in directions I had not considered, thank you. Dr. Michele Jacobsen, you modeled for me a constructivist approach in your way of being. By allowing me to direct my own learning path, and honouring, celebrating, and scaffolding the messy but rich work of conducting research, my learning was enhanced immeasurably. Dr. Jennifer Lock, your pithy comments, always injected with humour and grace, sharpened and clarified my thinking. Dr. Pratim Sengupta, your sage, overarching thoughts provided at just the right time, focused my notions of key ideas in the field. I would also like to acknowledge the Werklund doctoral students with whom I was fortunate enough to study. It was a pleasure to work with such a talented, caring, and thoughtful group of student academics. Our world is in good hands. Lastly, I would like to thank my family. My parents would have loved to have been given the opportunity I had. I acknowledge the sacrifices they both made so that future generations could have more choices and options. To my sister Kim, you were always there to listen, encourage, and wade through my papers. I am forever grateful. To my husband, Glenn, my biggest cheerleader, not only did you manage everything while I was locked away in my office, listen to my exclamations of joy (and pain), and rearrange our life to suit my needs, your acceptance of my quirks and foibles and my need to do this work is appreciated beyond measure. v You accept me and love me just as I am, and for that I am deeply grateful. I am very fortunate to have such a giving and loving partner. vi Dedication “Just to know you could. That was enough.” (Banks, 1980) I dedicate this work to Riley and her students. It was truly an honour and a privilege to risk take, design, create, learn, and grow together. vii Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ............................................................................................................................................ iv Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... v Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... vii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ viii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xvi Chapter One Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 Why Making as Innovative Teaching Practice? .......................................................................... 4 A Case for Researching Making in Canadian Schools ............................................................ 5 Definitions and Terminology ................................................................................................ 10 Constructionism ................................................................................................................. 10 Curriculum. ........................................................................................................................ 10 Learning Environment. ...................................................................................................... 10 Maker. ................................................................................................................................ 11 Makerspaces. ..................................................................................................................... 11 Making. .............................................................................................................................. 11 Research Questions, Purpose of the Study, and Conceptualization .......................................... 11 Study Site ............................................................................................................................... 12 Selection of Theoretical Frameworks and Conceptual Framework ...................................... 13 Chapter Two A Review of the Literature ...................................................................................... 15 Theories Underpinning Making for Learning ........................................................................... 16 viii Constructivism to Constructionism ....................................................................................... 16 Communities of Practice ....................................................................................................... 18 Connecting Constructivist/Constructionist Theories with Communities of Practice ............ 20 Social Constructivism ...........................................................................................................