1

Maker Education Initiators and Innovators

A thesis presented

by

Soi Chong Powell

to

The School of Education

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

College of Professional Studies

Northeastern University

Boston, Massachusetts

July 2021

2

Abstract

In an effort to interest more students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics classes (STEM), more school systems have implemented maker education in the formal school setting. However, many teachers assigned to implement the maker curricula met difficulties due to their unfamiliarity with the maker mindset and lack of the foundational knowledge needed to implement a transformative maker education program. Some of these initial maker educators became accomplished practitioners after engaging in autodidactic cycles of experiential learning as adult learners. If we were better able to understand the stories and experiences of effective maker educators as they transformed themselves from novice to accomplished maker educators, then we might be able to support the maker education continuum by contributing insights to guide the novice educators. Using Kolb’s theory of experiential learning as a lens, this narrative inquiry research study sought to answer the following research questions using interview data from six educators in private and public JPK-12 school settings in the United States. 1.) What influences and events in the life stories of teachers channeled them to become maker educators?

2.) What were the obstacles and opportunities that maker educators encountered during their transformation from novice to proficient levels of expertise? The major findings were the following: the backgrounds of maker educators impacted their choices and ability to acquire the relevant maker skills; maker educators needed time to experientially acquire the skills and understandings needed to gain competency; the effectiveness of maker educators depended on the support of their administrators; and proficient maker educators had specific attributes that reinforced their skills.

Keywords : maker education, constructivism, constructionism, progressive education, experiential education, andragogy, autodidacticism 3

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Koon Hep and Lai Wah Szeto Chong, who were my first teachers. As initiators and innovators, they modeled the maker mindset that inspired my siblings and me to follow our dreams. I additionally dedicate this dissertation to my husband Mark who has been by my side at every moment of this learning journey. I look forward to our future journeys together. Lastly, I dedicate this dissertation to our sons - Daniel and Kevin

– who continue to initiate and innovate.

4

Acknowledgments

Dr. Kelly Conn , your guidance was steadfast and reassuring. I thank you for advising me with sincerity, wisdom, and patience that helped me to reach my goal.

Dr. Corliss Brown Thompson, your social justice class was inspiring. You dispelled any doubts

I had about being in this program. Thank you for opening my eyes.

Dr. Elicia Dynae Fullwood, you have changed the lives of many educators and their students by mentoring them through the NASA education programs that you have developed and overseen. I am privileged to be one of those teachers. Now, I thank you again for being my third reader.

5

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... 2 Dedication ...... 3 Acknowledgments ...... 4 Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 8 Statement of the Problem ...... 8 Topic and Research Problem ...... 9 Justification for the Research Problem ...... 10 Deficiencies in the Context ...... 11 Audience ...... 13 Significance of the Research Problem ...... 14 Central Research Questions ...... 15 Positionality Statement ...... 16 Theoretical Framework ...... 23 Foundations of Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory ...... 24 Kolb’s Learning Cycle ...... 27 Kolb’s Learning Styles ...... 29 Critics ...... 31 Justification for Using This Framework ...... 32 Key Terms ...... 33 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 36 John Dewey and Progressive Education ...... 38 Progressive Education ...... 39 Dewey and Experiential Education ...... 41 Progressive Phobia ...... 43 Revival of Dewey’s Philosophy...... 44 Summary ...... 47 From STEM to STEAM to Maker Education ...... 48 The Space Race ...... 48 Accountability and Standardization ...... 50 Integrating the Arts Into STEM to Yield STEAM...... 52 Possibilities of Maker Education ...... 58 Summary ...... 61 Implementing Maker Education in School Settings ...... 62 Maker Spaces, Equipment, and Materials...... 63 The Human Factors ...... 67 Maker Mindset Curriculum With Equity and Inclusiveness ...... 71 Summary ...... 73 Conclusion ...... 74 Chapter 3: Research Design ...... 78 Research Design...... 80 Research Tradition ...... 82 Participants ...... 84 Recruitment and Access ...... 85 Protection of Human Subjects ...... 86 6

Data Collection ...... 87 Data Storage ...... 89 Data Analysis ...... 89 Organization, Reading, and Memoing ...... 89 Development of Codes and Themes ...... 90 Interpretation of the Data ...... 90 Representation and Visualization of the Data ...... 91 Trustworthiness ...... 91 Clarification of Researcher Bias and Familiarity ...... 92 Power Imbalances ...... 92 Prolonged Engagement ...... 92 Member Checking or Debriefing ...... 93 Robust, Thick Descriptions ...... 93 Disqualifications ...... 93 Chapter 4: Research Findings ...... 95 Participant Narratives...... 96 Amanda ...... 98 Danasa ...... 105 Demetrio ...... 115 Emmett ...... 122 Penelope ...... 130 Raven ...... 137 Emergent Themes ...... 145 The Teacher’s Background ...... 146 Experiential Development of Maker Skills...... 155 Support from Administrators, Colleagues, and Parents ...... 170 Teacher Attributes ...... 180 Conclusion ...... 194 Chapter 5: Summary, Findings, and Recommendations ...... 196 Summary of Study ...... 196 Summary of Findings ...... 198 Family Backgrounds Impact Abilities of Maker Educators ...... 198 Maker Educators Need Time to Acquire Skills ...... 200 Importance of Administrative Support ...... 201 Distinct Attributes of Maker Educators ...... 202 Conclusion ...... 203 Recommendations for Future Practice ...... 204 Limitations ...... 207 Recommendations for Future Research ...... 207 Reflection ...... 208 References ...... 209 Appendix A: Recruitment Email to Teacher Participants ...... 223 Appendix B: Informed Consent Form ...... 224 Appendix C: Interview Protocol ...... 227

7

List of Figures

Figure 1: Four stages of Kolb’s experiential learning cycle ...... 28 Figure 2: Kolb’s matrix of learning styles...... 30 Figure 3: Engineering design process...... 56 Figure 4: Principles of maker education as experiential education ...... 60

List of Tables

Table 1: Characteristics of Participants ...... 97

8

Chapter 1: Introduction

Statement of the Problem

In a tour of a newly built middle school in the Midwest, visitors noted the state-of-the art design of the facilities which included a robotics, technology, and innovation center composed of two separate rooms for use during formal class times as well as in afterschool programs. These were maker spaces, a result of the maker movement described in 2012 by Chris Anderson, former editor–in-chief of Wired magazine as “a new industrial revolution” (Halverson &

Sheridan, 2014, p. 496). The maker movement is a mindset advocated by “hobbyists, tinkerers, engineers, hackers, and artists committed to creatively designing and building material objects for both playful and useful ends” (Martin, 2015, p. 30). In effort to interest more students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics classes (STEM) or with the inclusion of the visual and performing arts (STEAM), more school systems have supported the implementation of maker education in the formal school setting (Dougherty, 2013; Kim, Edouard, Alderfer, &

Smith, 2019). Economists and education policymakers have long viewed STEM education as vital for maintaining a strong national economy, security, and society. Students and families perceived STEM careers as being in future demand, providing better economic security than jobs in other sectors, and having potential for closing social mobility gaps (Lynch et al., 2017). Yet, in this new educational model of an innovation space, six 3D printers sat in a row on a counter – all idle. Four laser printers on nearby carts were also unused. Neither teacher nor student created artifacts were on display anywhere in the lab. When the visitor complimented the teacher on her organized maker space, the teacher quietly commented, “Yes, and it will be really great once we figure out how to use all that equipment.” This account depicts a typical dilemma in many

American schools that have begun to set up maker education spaces. For newly assigned maker 9 educators, trying to quickly learn the vast amounts of content and technical knowledge needed to operate the tools and equipment of a maker lab can be overwhelming.

Topic and Research Problem

There is a growing trend among administrators and educators to incorporate maker education into their K-12 curricula in order to interest and engage more students into the STEM disciplines (Gerstein, 2016; Martin, 2015). The maker movement was launched less than 20 years ago and grew very quickly through technology and the internet. Makers shared their inventions and hacks virally and virtually with photos and videos complete with instructions on

YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, and other social media such as the Instructables and

Thingiverse websites. Although there are many innovation or maker labs being installed into schools nationwide, professional development training to put the laboratory equipment into use is lacking (Chu, Angello, Saenz, & Quek, 2017; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Hsu, Baldwin, &

Ching, 2017). Many teachers have not been provided enough time to learn the skills, content, and technical expertise needed to effectively operate a maker space in the formal K-12 school setting.

The teachers also need to understand the philosophy behind the maker movement that supports the experiential essence of the maker pedagogy in formal school settings. The purpose of this narrative study is to allow experienced maker educators in K-12 formal school settings to describe their experiences as they became accomplished maker educators with the expectation that administrators, pre-service, and in-service educators will benefit from the knowledge generated by this research and thus become better prepared to effectively teach students when implementing maker education spaces in their own settings.

10

Justification for the Research Problem

Dougherty and Conrad (2016) and proponents of educative making have envisioned and shared a conventional view of the school maker space as a classroom abuzz and humming with self-motivated students collaborating on projects such as using 3D printers to churn out artifacts from museum blueprints for history class enrichment (Dougherty, 2013). However, operational maker spaces do not occur instantaneously with the purchase of high-tech equipment. Although ample funding was available to purchase new high-tech tools, the teachers described in the vignette above still needed time and fundamental training to learn how to operate the new equipment and to understand how best to implement the maker content and pedagogy into a transformative maker classroom. Accessibility to quality STEM instruction in schools is not readily available to all students nationwide, which has created an unequal distribution of STEM knowledge capital (Lynch et al., 2017). Often, maker classrooms are assigned to science or technology teachers with experience and training in content areas such as coding, computer- aided design (CAD), engineering, or other technologies since maker education projects involve these skills and content from these disciplines. Other times, the teacher placed in charge of the maker space has been the school librarian, media specialist, or general education classroom teacher who may not have had training or experience with high-tech tools. They may lack the

STEM knowledge capital and understanding of experiential learning that are the important features of maker education. Many educators new to educative making – from the administrative to the teaching level - feel lost or overwhelmed by the amount of information they need to know in order to teach their students (Maslyk, 2016). Issues with distribution of resources and professional development, also persist. The allocation of the means to implement and support 11 maker education programs varies across districts, depending on leadership structures, and the availability of cultural, racial, and socio-economic and knowledge capital (Lynch et al., 2017).

These problems of practice do not negate the appeal of the maker movement, which was established and gained momentum through the founding and publication of Make magazine in

2005 by Dale Dougherty. Proponents have advocated its applications in formal education settings. Education stakeholders have noted the benefits of exposing younger students to STEM education programs that are engaging and inspiring. Earlier exposure to STEM results in a stronger society and workforce having more students ably prepared for technically demanding jobs and thus opting for STEM careers which in turn promote social mobility (Lehman, 2015;

Payne, 2016). Another advantage is that there would be more workers trained with the STEM content and skills needed to fill the growing number of STEM related jobs in the future.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) jobs in STEM fields will increase to total

9 million by the year 2022 (Vilorio, 2014). There is an enchanting playfulness associated with making that celebrates the ingenuity, cleverness, and inventiveness that some educators and business stakeholders want to instill in STEM education.

Deficiencies in the Context

A closer look at educative making shows that maker pedagogy actually challenges the traditional lecture style pedagogy used in many STEM classrooms (Bevan, 2017). In this context, many schools have rushed to repurpose traditional libraries for maker labs, innovation labs,

STEAM labs, or other names associated to maker education with the expectation that having a designated area within the school outfitted with the right equipment would ignite sparks of creativity in their students (Hsu et al., 2017; Patton & Knochel, 2017). The most successful schools implementing maker education have credited their maker programs with providing 12 pathways for students that had previously struggled with traditional pedagogy (Dougherty,

2013). As more schools jump on the maker bandwagon, many educators assigned to maker labs are expected to design the space, choose the equipment and tools, and develop the curriculum in a brief period of time. This creates a dilemma regarding how to provide adequate professional development for teachers who need to understand how to implement effective maker programs.

Since the trend of implementing educative maker programs school settings has emerged in the decade of 2010, many teachers have encountered difficulties learning the necessary technical skills and developing the best pedagogy and curricula that works for their own classroom

(Martin, 2015; Maslyk, 2016).

Administrators and educators forget that the content, pedagogy, and understandings necessary to run a transformational maker space are not transferred simply by attending workshops, reading manuals, purchasing expensive equipment, and watching YouTube videos.

The teachers themselves, as adult learners, must also consider their own learning processes and preferences (Monk, 2013; Peterson, DeCato, & Kolb, 2015). The educators must make things with intent and purpose. Furthermore, facilitators of teacher professional development should be mindful of motivating factors and learning preferences of teachers in training sessions. Money is being poured into a specific area of schools for maker labs, but because funds and time for training are not sufficient, the maker labs are remaining underused (Bevan, 2017).

The professional development programs preparing the teachers that become maker educators are not placing enough emphasis on the engineering design process and sufficient technical knowledge (DeJarnette, 2012). Hence, many educators are intimidated by the amount of technical jargon, content, and skills. Eventually, many teachers become overwhelmed in their attempts to acquire that technical knowledge capital that will enable them to effectively 13 implement maker education into their curricula. Teachers need time to work on the new tools in situations where their own interests and histories may be considered in order to achieve the highest level of engagement and self-investment. “Teachers are asked to teach in ways in which they have no personal experience with tools in short supply” (Martinez & Stager, 2019, p. 226).

Like their students, teachers need opportunities where they are not penalized for acquiring and honing skills that are best learned through attempts and failures. Administrators and educators need to realize that differences between the informal and formal educational settings in maker labs are well defined. “ Learning in making is, emphatically not interchangeable with schooling .

Learning through making reaches across the divide between formal and informal learning, pushing us to think more expansively about where and how learning happens” (Halverson &

Sheridan, 2014, p. 498).

Audience

In order to help maker-educators find success in establishing effective maker labs that are used for the intended goals of engaging students, more studies are needed to understand the mindset of the teachers who are the change makers. The willingness of maker teachers to accept and implement maker education can have a direct impact on the effectiveness of the maker education program. “However, previous studies paid more attention to the connotation, characteristics, and practical programs of the maker education, and less on the teachers’ perspective on the acceptance of the maker education” (Tian, Li, Ren, Zhang, & Wu, 2017, p.

250). In comparing and contrasting how effective educators implement maker education into their own classroom situations in various locations in the United States, common and distinct techniques and pedagogies may be discerned. Hence, this study can provide insights for maker educators on how best to address the questions and tensions (Herold, 2016) that are a part of the 14 maker pedagogy, curriculum, and classroom environment with the goal of improving education experiences for all students.

Significance of the Research Problem

This problem is significant in all levels of education (Ryoo & Calabrese Barton, 2018).

Because the implementation of maker education in the formal school setting is nascent, very little quantitative or qualitative research on the effectiveness of maker education has been done

(Chu et al., 2017; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). Furthermore, the degrees of implementation in a given school model can range from the installation of a maker lab within a school, to having a maker cart travel throughout the building, to having teachers incorporating making in their curricula, to having the occasional maker outreach event conducted by guest informal educators

(Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). School administrators around the world are looking to maker education as a more efficient way to deliver education, particularly STEM education experientially for their students (Maslyk, 2016). Educators are hoping that the novelty and counterculture affiliations of the maker movement may be a way to convince students that STEM

(science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects and careers can be creative, exciting, and fun. In many schools, maker spaces are described as hybrid classrooms with aspects of shop and home economics classes, art studios, computer and science labs (Hsu et al.,

2017). Research has revealed that educators found that making in formal education settings “is more focused on the product and process while informal making is more about exploration, tinkering, discovery, developing understanding of collaboration, tools, and using available materials” (Hsu et al., 2017, p. 590).

Learning from the accounts of the accomplished educators about the process that they underwent in order to reach their levels of expertise may provide insights to administrators 15 whose goals are to provide effective professional development to maker teachers who need to learn content, pedagogy, and technical skills has the potential to improve the implementation of the maker program and subsequently increase student achievement (Kintz, Lane, Gotwals, &

Cisterna, 2015). Traditionally, in designing lessons and planning presentations, educators have placed their focus mainly on relaying the subject content to their students. Also, emphasis is placed on covering the standards of the curriculum and less consideration is given to the instructional methodology. If we were better able to understand educators’ experiences in becoming proficient maker teachers and how they have been influenced by their own mentors, passion for teaching, and access to effective professional development, then other administrators and educators would benefit from their expertise and insights. Thus, the purpose of this study is to learn from the narratives of six experienced maker educators in different types of school settings about their experiences while they acquired the content knowledge, the pedagogy, and the technical skills to become effective transformative maker educators.

Central Research Questions

Recently, K-12 schools have been installing maker education spaces in order to make the

STEM subjects more engaging and less intimidating and thus provide more pathways for students who struggle with traditional delivery of the content. Maker education also instills important life skills such as collaboration, communication, creative, and critical thinking skills

(Dougherty & Conrad, 2016; Maslyk, 2016). Maker education is experiential and facilitates the collateral acquisition of creative, communicative, collaborative, and critical thinking skills. The teachers assigned to teach in the maker labs find that they need to acquire a great amount of content, pedagogy, and technical expertise within a short period of time. Most of the resources and training available to educators are presented in workshops or webinars in lecture style, with 16 little involvement from the teachers (Kintz et al., 2015). This study explored how accomplished maker educators progressed from the novice to expert levels of teaching in formal K-12 school settings in the United States. It will benefit educators and teacher educators to understanding how the experiences and insights of successful maker educators helped and or hindered their development to become effective maker educators. It also addressed advantages and obstacles encountered when implementing this model including: (a) maker educators’ concerns regarding implementation, (b) best practices regarding equity and inclusiveness, and (c) how best to engage marginalized students. The specific research questions addressed in this study are:

● What influences and events in the life stories of teachers channeled them to become

maker educators?

● What were the obstacles and opportunities that maker educators encountered during their

transformation from novice to proficient levels of expertise?

Positionality Statement

The intimate nature and procedures of narrative studies can be challenging (Creswell,

2013). In analyzing and relating the stories of participants into a sensemaking framework, the researcher is “restorying” their stories (Creswell, 2013, p. 74). As the researcher, I was actively involved with the participants while unfolding the inquiry (Creswell, 2012). Together, we co- constructed new knowledge that has built upon our prior experiences (Creswell, 2013; Dewey,

1938). It is important that I acknowledge my own story as a co-constructor and collaborator in this study.

New adventures and projects are a part of my family history. As an infant, I immigrated to the United States in 1958 with my mother to join my father who had immigrated eight years earlier. We were part earlier groups of Chinese women and children allowed to enter the US after 17 the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943. As a child, I was able to observe how my mother and father assimilated into a new culture without any formal language lessons or a support system. In China, both of my parents had completed the equivalent of a U.S. high school education. The little formal education in addition to the other education which was “implicit and grounded in everyday life …focused on survival…” (Carlton Parsons, 2008, p. 1130). We lived in a rural Michigan sundown town where according to law all people who were Black were required to leave by sunset. Having minimal English-speaking skills and no mentors or friends nearby, my parents learned on their own how to make do with what little they had. Out of necessity, my mother taught herself how to sew and knit. Frugal with fabrics and yarn, I recall how she would frequently unravel a sweater in order to redesign and knit a new garment that was a better design and often served a new purpose. Watching my mother, I witnessed daily a living model of the engineering design process with its iterations and improvements. I can remember how my father had only one sharp multi-tasking knife which was used to cut meat and vegetables as well as trim down a long bandage for my toddler-sized finger. These are firsthand examples of the critical and creative thinking skills typically not valued by the rest of our society (Yosso,

2005). At rare social gatherings while the children played, the adults – all immigrants - exchanged recipes, instructions for crafts, and general survival skills in the new country. Until now, I had not realized the significance of my parents’ and their friends’ self-taught life-long learning.

In search of economic opportunities, my parents eventually chose to settle in a city in southwest Indiana where we were one of only three Chinese families in the community. At an early age, my parents instilled in me the importance of education and hard work. Growing up as the other in an insular and primarily German Catholic city, my family and I experienced being 18 stereotyped because most people around us had only seen Asians in the movies or on TV. Yet, while my parents’ feelings of loneliness and isolation from being far from friends and family was apparent, they never complained because their focus was on the promise of the American Dream.

They believed that hard work, perseverance, and education would yield social mobility and a better life for future progeny. Their survival skills served them well. Twenty years after their arrival in the United States, my parents owned their own restaurant, which they ran for 25 years before selling and retiring.

After my parents achieved their goals, I was able to find time to focus on my own aspirations. Since 2006, I have been the K-4 Science teacher at an independent college- preparatory school in southwestern Indiana. After attending several robotics workshops, I initiated the robotics program for Grades 4-8 in 2007. Our team grew steadily, improved, and won at several local and regional competitions. Five years ago, I relinquished the duties of coaching the middle school team to the new middle school science teacher to focus more on the elementary STEM curriculum. Currently, I only coach robotics to 4th graders. While the robotics program is predominantly delivered after school as an extracurricular activity, I also introduce robotics to the second through fourth grades in science classes as part of the technology unit each year.

Initially, many of my colleagues skeptically viewed me as the other – as an outsider. I had also been stereotyped as a Chinese restaurant owner with few other career options. In pursuit of validation and excellence, I worked hard at my job to prove that I had the essential qualities not only of a good teacher, but of one of the best teachers. I applied for and received fellowships, awards, and opportunities which have enabled me to hone my craft as an ever-evolving educator.

Now upon reflection, I realize that the intense drive established through my former positionality 19 as the other due to my non-traditional path to becoming an educator actually fueled my search for validation. This goal resulted in bringing me strength and valuable collateral knowledge and skills which have benefitted my students, my school, and my community.

My K-4 science classroom is well-stocked with equipment, supplies, and kits. In a designated stand-alone classroom, I have been able to design a hands-on, project-based program for the students that is well regarded and appreciated by the students and the parents.

Intentionally, more emphasis has been placed on skills, such as listening, sequencing, completing tasks, and working with others. As a robotics coach, I enjoy using robotics to teach important skills such as collaboration, cooperation, resilience, and creativity. Being able to build, program, and teach robotics has given me street cred with my students, their parents, and my colleagues.

The core values which will help my students survive and become desirable employees include the qualities which I saw in my parents – resilience, creativity, collaboration, and a strong work ethic. Unfortunately, these qualities are not measurable on any standardized tests.

Four years ago, at a robotics workshop, I learned about the maker movement and its relevance to elementary education. The maker movement refers to a growing number of crafters, inventors, designers, artists, roboticists, tinkerers, hackers, and engineers who model the constructivist philosophy of learning by doing in their conception, planning, and creation of self- made products. The maker labs that are being assembled in many schools and libraries combine the newest technologies such as 3-D printers with the practical skills of makers to solve a problem, perform a task, or to make an object to be shared. The maker curriculum has potential to improve education and the future for more students by the acquisition of the collateral knowledge and skills. The unintended learning is the linkage that will help marginalized students assimilate and navigate through the structured education system. 20

My intentional journey to becoming a maker educator began after viewing a webinar presented by Sylvia Martinez, the coauthor with Gary Stager of the 2013 book Invent to Learn:

Making, Tinkering, and Engineering in the Classroom. I realized that maker education included many aspects that I had been using all along in science classes. I began to look up more information maker education and how it could be used to make STEM education more exciting for elementary students. I tried to read everything that I could find on maker education in formal school settings. At a workshop in 2014, I met Sylvia Martinez and asked her about classroom management in the maker space. She was quite honest and explained that she had never taught formally as a teacher in any classroom. I realized later that her insights and expertise as an engineer and advocate for pedagogy that includes making and tinkering are what make her highly regarded by school administrators, teachers, and informal educators such as librarians and museum outreach coordinators. The individual educator must set their own guidelines according to the culture of the school and with consideration for the students as individuals and collectively.

I worked on adding maker projects as the capstone activity for thematic units for each level in primary science. Some of the projects were successful; a few were failures. I learned how to do most of the activities and projects from online resources and by watching YouTube videos. I modeled the engineering design process for my students by displaying the iterations.

Because my students were in early to upper elementary grades, the greatest struggles were with classroom management, organization and storage of materials and tools, and helping students overcome their fears of failure. My administrators were supportive and understood that there was a maker educators’ learning curve. I have come to realize that classroom management for educative making is similar to classroom management for all other curricula. It depends on the 21 personalities and relationships between the teachers and the students in the classroom. There is not one formulaic solution or style.

Two years later, in 2016, I was included in a school committee of six teachers assigned to collaborate and develop maker education curricula that is aligned with existing curricula across content areas and divisions at our JPK-12 school. Most of the time, the teachers had all worked in isolation within their own divisions. The maker program needed clarification and continuity across the K-12 curriculum map. The communication and sharing aspects have been a struggle for the teachers due to time constraints resulted pockets of teachers in various divisions of the building discussing projects at off-times such as during playground or lunch duty when teachers can gather informally. From these collaborative experiences, I have learned that the outcomes are much more satisfying and memorable when activities and events originate organically from the passion and creativity of teachers. The contrived projects mandated by obligatory faculty professional development in-service meetings do not yield such results. Teachers are not dissimilar from students in that learning experiences are richer and more engaging if the motivation for participation is intrinsic. Extrinsic motivators may work for the short term, but only for as long as the extrinsic reward is deemed desirable or worth the effort (Kohn, 1993).

Although I have found validation for the robotics program through student enthusiasm and engagement, I have occasionally had discussions with parents who did not understand the importance of their child investing time into designing, building, and programming the robots which they considered toys. Some parents continue to expect and prefer a traditional education where the students read from a book and take a test for which grades will appear on a permanent record. Even though I taught the students how to use tools such as pliers, a power drill, PVC pipe cutter, soldering iron, and wire strippers, few parents appreciated the acquisition of these life 22 skills which are valued in a deficit class (Carlton Parsons, 2008; Jupp & Slattery, 2006). These are tools to be used by others who must labor (Briscoe, 2005). I have explained to doubting parents that my program is not solely focused on content, but that the activities collaterally teach life-long skills valued by future employers. As an elementary science teacher, I have acquired the maker content knowledge, pedagogy, and skills in a combination of ways. I have read maker literature, watched YouTube videos, and attended workshops, lectures, night classes at a local innovation lab, and summer educator camps. The most important and effective way I have learned the maker skills and mindset is through my own making . Learning by repeated cycles of experiential learning through the ideation and creation of an artifact, reflecting on mistakes to improve the design, remaking the artifact with adaptations, and then applying the new knowledge to other projects are the elements that epitomize the experience and continuum in the

Dewey’s philosophy of experiential learning and Kolb’s experiential learning theory. I have dedicated time and effort in acquiring maker knowledge. I am aware that my understandings and experiences may be both insights and biases.

Other educators have asked how I transformed myself from a novice educator to a master educator. I believe my experiences have taught me that personal and professional growth take a long time. There is no formula, game plan, or recipe in the transformation of an educator. Many factors need to be in alignment including the personal dedication and drive of the teacher. I fear that many of the offerings through email promotions and brochures for maker education workshops give aspiring maker educators the notion that their attendance at the workshop will transform them into proficient maker educators. I also feel that some novice educators of the digital generation rely too much on technology for making, especially for younger students.

Many educators forget that younger students need experiential activities that collaterally develop 23 their fine and gross motor skills. It is possible on a certain level that I envy the younger tech savvy educators for their seemingly effortless acquisition of digital skills. By identifying these beliefs and apprehensions, I am acknowledging my awareness of my own biases as a scholar practitioner. I understand that I will need to be aware of the influences of my own positionality which will shape how the restoried accounts of the participants unfold (Creswell, 2013).

Recording my thoughts and impressions with field notes in a journal while interviewing the participants will help maintain trustworthiness. It will also be important to listen patiently and intently and not make assumptions or inadvertent interpretations about participants’ stories based on connections between the data and my own experiences.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework used in this study is Kolb’s experiential learning theory, which is comprised of two parts. The first part is the experiential education model, which is a cycle of four stages (1984). The second part of Kolb’s theory, the inventory of learning styles developed in 1985 will be used in this study to a lesser degree (McLeod, 2017). The experiential learning model will be useful as a lens to understand how effective initial maker educators have acquired a range of knowledge, including the pedagogical skills of teaching young people, the technical knowledge of operating specific equipment and tools, the historical context for making connections, creative and critical thinking skills, and the personal philosophy that is aligned with the maker mindset. The educators who laid the groundwork for implementing maker education in formal K-12 school settings did not have resources such as manuals, workshops, or the guidance of other educators on which to base their curriculum. When new technologies are developed, the formal paths for learning about them, how to use them, and the roles and responsibilities of the practitioners have not yet been defined nor developed (Sinclair, 2018). The teachers – as adult 24 learners - had to teach themselves many of the maker skills before they could teach their students. The pioneering maker educators who are now the gurus had to learn, often in isolation, the skills, content, and mindset required to facilitate a maker space. Using Kolb’s experiential learning theory as a lens will guide the focus on the comprehensive learning process – or the learning journey - of the maker educators rather than their accumulation of finite content (Long

& Gummelt, 2019).

Foundations of Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory

Kolb’s experiential learning theory is based predominantly on the writings of several 20 th century scholars, namely John Dewey, Kurt Lewin, and Jean Piaget. Kolb also refers to the work of Carl Jung, Fritz Perl, Abraham Maslow, Lev Vygotsky, William James, Paulo Freire, Carl

Rogers, and Mary Parker Follett. All of these scholars emphasized experience as the key factor in their beliefs about education and development (A. Y. Kolb, Kolb, Passarelli, & Sharma,

2014).

Dewey and adult learners. A. Y. Kolb et al. (2014) called John Dewey the most influential educational theorist of the 20 th century due to his works that have become the guiding principles for modern day experiential learning, particularly in higher education. Dewey’s approaches to learning were developed in response to the challenges of the Industrial Revolution, specifically adult learners needing to acquire the skills to operate new machinery. The ability to deal with changes in one’s environment and society are linked to lifelong learning. In modern times, as institutions of higher learning have expanded programs to make higher education accessible to formerly disenfranchised individuals, universities have looked to Dewey’s traditional experiential learning methods to make the abstract ideas of academia more concrete and relatable to the everyday world of these new students. Many students in the United States 25 have had to return to school due to adult career changes becoming more frequent as a result of technological advancements and the outsourcing of traditionally local jobs; this also created a need to address the circumstances of adult learners (A. Y. Kolb et al., 2014; Svinicki & Dixon,

1987).

Lewin’s group training session studies. Kurt Lewin was the founder of American social psychology. He was a refugee to the United States from Nazi Germany. Lewin’s research on behalf of the post 1940 war effort led to studies of the causes of religious and racial prejudice, the morale of soldiers during battle, psychological warfare, and the psychological redirection of food choices when specific foods are not available (Smith, 2001). He also compared the effectiveness of different leadership styles – such as authoritarianism, democracy, and laissez faire – in an attempt to make sense of the psychological workings of dictatorships and democracies. In 1947, Lewin cofounded the National Training Laboratories Institute for Applied

Behavioral Science - known today as the NTL Institute. Lewin’s most powerful discovery developed from a 1946 collaborative training experience in which participants were allowed to participate in discussions at the onset of the training. The resulting discovery was that learning is positively affected when there is a dialectic tension and conflict between the concrete experiences of the material world and the abstract ideas of the academic world. Thus, a training session that combined the trainees’ immediate experiences with the conceptual goals of the facilitating staff yielded an effective learning environment with more creative ideas and energy.

Although Lewin passed away in 1947, his colleagues - Leland Bradford, Ron Lippitt, and Ken

Benne - carried on his work by developing the training group theory or T-group theory and the laboratory method that is now called action research (A. Y. Kolb et al., 2014). The T-group 26 training model evolved to become the sensitivity training group model that is now a classic technique for conflict resolution in organizational settings (Batista, 2018).

Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. Piaget was a French developmental psychologist and genetic epistemologist whose work focused on the nature of intelligence and how intelligence is developed. He noted that children think and come to conclusions in different ways at different stages of their development. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development suggests that children go through four general stages as they develop their capacity to think critically.

Piaget believed that intelligence is shaped by experience because intelligence is not a finite biological characteristic of a person, but rather a product of the interaction between a person and their surroundings. Piaget also proposed that a person’s knowledge is built by new experiences that are shaped by previous experiences, which in turn adapt to the new understandings as they are accumulated. Piaget’s work led to the design of experience-based education programs that considered the stage of cognitive development of the students. While Piaget’s theories addressed childhood learning, his work has also helped researchers who focused on adult learners. These researchers look at the consequences and remedies for individuals who struggle with incomplete reasoning skills due to not undergoing the four stages of cognitive development completely by adulthood. The understanding that learning and cognitive development are lifelong processes means that schools and other organizations of learning are responsible for operating in a manner that will provide adults with experiences that promote their personal learning and growth (A. Y.

Kolb et al., 2014; Svinicki & Dixon, 1987).

Kolb also credited two other groups of psychologists and educators for their contributions to experiential education theory. The first group was the adapters – Erik Erikson, Carl Rogers, and Abraham Maslow – who focused on the interdependence of the cognitive and social 27 emotional processes for development. The second group of contributors was the radical educators – Paulo Freire and Ivan Illich – who believed that education systems were designed to control society and proposed that a critical consciousness needed to be instilled in people through dialogue among their peers. While these scholars all influenced Kolb in his research, he ultimately looked to the traditions of Dewey, Lewin, and Piaget to develop his theory of the experiential learning cycle as a template for designing learning experiences to guide educators

(A. Y. Kolb et al., 2014).

Kolb’s Learning Cycle

Kolb defined learning as a cyclical process in which knowledge is created when an experience is transforming (Vince, 1998). Kolb’s experiential learning theory emphasizes the importance of actual hands-on experiences to the learning process since new learning is a result of the integration of an experience and the associated perceptions, reflections, and behaviors.

Building on the teachings of Dewey, Lewin, and Piaget, Kolb proposed that the process of learning involves the four stages, as shown in Figure 1. 28

Figure 1. Four stages of Kolb’s experiential learning cycle. Adapted from Konak, Clark, and

Nasereddin (2014) and Long and Gummelt (2019).

Each stage of the learning cycle builds on the previous stage(s). No stage in isolation is effective as a learning strategy (Rumson, 2018). Direct experience during a learning opportunity depends on the active engagement and participation of the learner, in contrast with a traditional learning experience that is instructor directed and the student is passive (Konak et al., 2014).

Concrete experience (CE) and abstract conceptualization (AC) involve the initial grasping or understanding of an experience. Reflective observation (RO) and active experimentation (AE) are concerned with the critical consideration and consequent application of the concepts to new experiments and experiences (Long & Gummelt, 2019). The teacher-learner begins by engaging and participating in a concrete (hands-on) experience and then reflects on their observations from that activity. The reflections are developed into general concepts (patterns and big ideas) that 29 may be applied to new experiments and experiences (Long & Gummelt, 2019; Zainal, Din, Abd

Majid, Nasrudin, & Abd Rahman, 2018). Kolb provided six propositions that describe the transformation of experience in support of his experiential cycle:

● Learning should be considered as a process, not as an outcome.

● Learning as a process is a continuum based on experience.

● The process of learning is dependent on the resolution of conflicts as one adapts to their

surrounding environment.

● The adaptation to one’s world is a holistic process that involves thoughts, feelings,

perceptions, and behaviors.

● Learning is based on interactions between the person and their environment.

● Learning is the process of creating knowledge through experiences.

A person controls their own learning and self-development when they reflect on and process their experiences on which they will base future learning and decisions (Vince, 1998). Kolb’s experiential learning theory helps explain how the teacher educator comes to understand the need for learners to take what they know and be able to use what they know. As succinctly stated by

Long and Gummelt (2019, p. 2), “such a process of learning bridges the gap between ‘knowing what’ and ‘knowing how.’”

Kolb’s Learning Styles

Kolb extended his theory beyond experiential learning cycles, which are the focus of this study, to include an inventory of learning styles. Kolb suggested that an individual’s preference of learning style is based on their placement on the processing and perceptual continuums. This preference may be identified using the answers to questions about a person’s emotional and behavioral tendencies when given choices about which action to take in different situations. The 30 processing continuum is based on the learner’s manner of addressing a task, ranging from being likely to jump right in and act to being cautiously observant and planning out strategies before acting. The perception continuum is based on the learner’s reaction to addressing problems, ranging from going first with emotions, attitudes, and feelings to using a more critical and thoughtful approach. The matrix in Figure 2 shows how the product of these continuums produces two variables that yield the distinct learning style preference of the individual.

Accommodators (CE/AE) prefer to learn through active experimentation and concrete experiences. These people are risk-takers and also enjoy learning through iterations and practice.

Figure 2 . Kolb’s matrix of learning styles. Adapted from Rumson (2018).

Divergers (CE/RO) prefer to learn through concrete experience and reflective observation. They are talented at identifying problems and finding viable alternatives or solutions for problems. Convergers (AC/AE) tend to learn using abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. They are good at pinpointing the sources of issues, solving problems and at making decisions. Assimilators (AC/RO) are more concerned with ideas and visions because 31 they learn mainly by abstract conceptualization and reflective observation (Muscat & Mollicone,

2012; Rumson, 2018).

Because individuals have their own preferred learning styles, different individuals will respond differently and have different levels of engagement with different types of tasks or activities. Kolb’s matrix allows individuals to understand their own preferences of learning styles and ways of approaching problems and tasks. Also, by identifying where they can make adaptations in their own learning processes, these individuals can become more efficient at learning. It is possible in the experiential learning by an individual that all four stages may be of value at different stages of the learning cycle and that the human brain adapts to operate in a range or blend of the different learning styles in response to the context and task at hand (Jarrett,

2018). It would behoove designers of curricula to be mindful to include activities and tasks that address a variety of learning preferences. Similarly, for administrators, it is to the benefit of their programs to assign personnel whose learning style preferences are in alignment with the tasks to be addressed (Rumson, 2018). This research will draw upon Kolb’s learning styles inventory to the extent that it provides insights into the themes and findings.

Critics

Critics of Kolb’s experiential learning theory have noted that actual learning seldom occurs in isolated and sequential steps, but that the steps are overlapping and blurred. Another criticism is that Kolb does not account for the social, historical (prior experiences), and cultural settings or backgrounds of the learners (Konak et al., 2014). Vince (1998) noted how Kolb’s model focuses on the experience of the individual and how that experience interacts with social reality. Kolb’s model does not account for experiences that are constructed, formed, and limited by social power relationships. Kolb’s model of the learning cycle seems to be apolitical and thus 32 is incapable explaining inequalities of power in relationships (Vince, 1998). For educators who are not accommodators, developers of student curricula and teacher professional development will continue to struggle with time constraints, with leaving the comfort zones of familiar teaching methods, and with risk-taking (Svinicki & Dixon, 1987).

Justification for Using This Framework

Kolb’s experiential learning theory will be used to focus on the comprehensive learning process – or the learning journey - of the maker educators rather than their accumulation of finite content (Long & Gummelt, 2019). Kolb’s theory provides a framework for learning and teaching that takes into account the needs and situations of all learners, notably the adult learners who are the focus of this study. In educational situations with new innovations, curricula, or pedagogical techniques, there are educators who acting as adult learners are willing to accept the challenges. These adult learners are the pioneering educators who are the initial teachers assigned to establish maker labs. It seems likely that, referencing Kolb’s matrix of learning styles in Figure 2, these educators would be accommodators, passionate risk takers. Having no established parameters or guidelines since maker education in formal K-12 school settings are a new phenomenon, these educators are self-taught or autodidactic (Sinclair, 2018). The experienced maker educators will have spent time, effort, and other sacrifices to learn all that they could to facilitate an effective maker space in their school. These trailblazing educators likely had experiences that invoked the 4 stages of Kolb’s cycle in order to become not just effective teachers of the students in the school maker spaces, but also effective teachers and leaders for the novice maker educators. The benefits of using Kolb’s experiential learning theory outweigh the drawbacks because the four stages of the learning cycle provide a conceptual rubric and structure for how maker educators learn how to facilitate an effective maker space. The 33 cyclic arrangement of the learning stages also reinforces the reiterative nature of life-long learning (Kintz et al., 2015; Konak et al., 2014). The use of Kolb’s experiential learning theory as a lens will help with the dissemination of the teachers’ narratives as well as provide a framework for how future teachers will learn.

Key Terms

The following terms are interrelated and often used interchangeably, and so it easy to understand why there is so much confusion. The methodology for delivery of progressive education is through experiential learning. Experiential learning is the gaining of knowledge and understandings through experience (Dewey, 1938). Experiential learning in the school setting includes many nuanced approaches such as project-based learning (PBL), active learning, problem-based learning, service learning, place-based learning, field experiences, co-operative education assignments, and internships (Experiential Learning, n.d.). PBL is an instructional approach which may promote interest and engagement in STEM content. Tamim and Grant

(2013) cite Duffy and Cunningham (1996) in defining PBL as a teaching model that “entails the construction of knowledge with multiple perspectives, within a social activity, and allows for self-awareness of learning and knowing while being context dependent” (p. 73). According to

Mitchell (2017) maker education and project-based learning are much the same. “They both focus on the creation of projects, critical thinking and problem-solving skills, creativity, and have potential to foster empathy in students” (Mitchell, 2017, para. 4). Maker education differs in that it places more focus on design thinking that includes tweaking, hacking, or tinkering with objects that already exist for improved functions or for repurposing. Maker education also includes coding and engineering, as opposed to project-based learning which is inclusive of any and all 34 curricula. Thus, for the purpose of this study, the terms experiential education, project-based learning, STEM learning, and maker education will be interchangeable.

andragogy: The practice of education that is focused on the needs and goals of adult learners as opposed to those of adolescent learners (Holmes & Abington-Cooper, 2000).

autodidacticism: Autodidacticism is the process during which a person gathers, processes, absorbs, and uses new knowledge in an informal manner, in isolation. The learner is self-taught and self-motivated (Sinclair, 2018).

constructivism: Constructivism is a philosophy of education based on the Jean Piaget’s belief that learning occurs as learners are actively involved in a process of meaning and knowledge construction as opposed to passively receiving information. Learners are the makers of meaning and knowledge (Martinez & Stager, 2019). Based on the philosophy of John Dewey and the findings of Seymour Papert, the constructivist approach allows the students to construct their knowledge and meanings by building on what exists and by the manual completion of projects that are sharable (Martinez & Stager, 2013a).

constructionism: Constructionism is a theory of education by Seymour Papert that emphasizes the ability of children to create their own understandings “by actively constructing knowledge through the act of making something shareable” (Martinez & Stager, 2019).

experiential education: Experiential education is learning by doing. Students physically work with other students on a mission with specific goals that will have benefits and consequences. In the process, students acquire primary knowledge directly as opposed to secondary knowledge that is gained by reading or by listening to a lecture. Students also reflect on their experiences and thus develop new perspectives. Experiential education is congruent to constructivist learning theories (Little & Ellison, 2015). 35

progressive education: Progressive education “prepares students for active participation in a democratic society, in the context of a child-centered environment, and with an enduring commitment to social justice” (Little & Ellison, 2015, p. 52).

STEM education: STEM education is a term developed from the National Science

Foundation to describe learning that focuses on the idea that science, technology, engineering, and math are interrelated and should be taught in an integrated way (Mills, 2017). Some educators have added on to the original acronym with STEAM by including the visual and performing arts, STEAM-G with geography, STREAM with reading, and many others (Land,

2013; Maslyk, 2016). Note: While the original meaning of STEM was based on the siloed content areas of science, technology, engineering, and math, the meaning of the acronym has evolved. The framework of this study calls for a working definition of STEM learning that includes STEM mindsets, skills, and dispositions that is congruent to experiential learning.

project-based learning (PBL): Project-based learning is a collaborative and student- centered approach to learning that is essentially experiential education (Gerstein, 2013; Little &

Ellison, 2015).

maker education: Maker education is aligned with STEAM education to provide meaningful ways for students to engage and learn through hands-on/minds-on activities while collaborating with others (Maslyk, 2016) with the goal “to build confident learners through the practices of making” (Dougherty & Conrad, 2016, p. 187). For the purposes of this research,

Maker education encompasses all of the types of pedagogy listed above.

36

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This chapter will review the available literature and information relevant to maker education in the formal K-12 school setting. The concept of maker education is difficult to define since it encompasses a wide range of implementation levels in different school settings. Herold

(2016) explains that in the most general sense, maker education involves hands-on activities that relate to academic learning and that supports collaboration, experimentation, and a growth mindset. The allure of the maker movement has convinced many educators across the nation that its implementation into the formal educational setting will close the “skills gap” and also increase the number of students going into STEM careers (Dougherty & Conrad, 2016, p. 226).

Maker education is being promoted as the most effective way to deliver STEM curriculum to K-

12 students (Maslyk, 2016). With so many schools eager to apply maker education to their curricula to promote scores or to recruit and retain students in STEM courses, it is prudent to take a step back to examine how Dewey’s (1938) progressive education, STEM education, and the maker curriculum and pedagogies are interrelated. Maker education resources and maker educator workshops are offered worldwide to educators as a way to increase the STEM engagement of students. However, some educators suggest that maker education is at the core a nuanced version of John Dewey’s progressive education of the 1930s. The difference is that maker education purposely places a primary focus on design thinking, engineering, and innovation.

This literature review will begin by focusing on the concepts rooted in Dewey’s (1938) progressive philosophy of education that shape one’s understanding of their historical climate and the world around them. Dewey’s advocacy for schools that allows for hands-on experiences delivered through interdisciplinary experiences is an important aspect of providing an education 37 that prepares students to become thoughtful citizens that can contribute to a democratic society.

The reasons why Dewey’s model of experiential education continues to be relevant to teachers will also be examined.

The second strand of this literature review will relate the chronological history of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in the US, including the extended content areas and acronyms such as science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics

(STEAM). Other teachers began adding other content such as geography to science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics (STEAM-G), and reading to science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics (STREAM). By adding other content such as visual and performing arts, and technology classes – formerly known as shop classes – STEM has evolved into the experiential education models that were first suggested by Dewey. Project-based learning is one of the many approaches of experiential learning. This most recent incarnation of experiential education is known as maker education.

The implementation of maker education in K-12 school settings that have demonstrated positive long-term outcomes for students will be the focus of the third strand. “The term progressive education , although widely used, encompasses a broad and contradictory range of ideas and reforms” (Davies, 2002, p. 269). Understanding how progressive maker education can be incorporated in school settings should clarify and educate teachers, administrators, policymakers, and parents as to why progressive maker education delivers the most effective and democratic education for formal K-12 school STEAM maker spaces. First the settings, equipment, and materials will be discussed. This will cover how to establish a maker space in alignment with individual school settings, along with information on the choices of tools and materials most suitable school maker spaces. Then the human factors will be studied: 38 administrators, support of parents, community partners, and most importantly the maker educators along with their training as self-taught adult learners. Last, with the intent to provide the most equitable, engaging, and enlightening, maker curricula for students, the ways for educators to develop a meaningful, transformative maker program will be examined. There are still concerns about how best to bridge the best aspects of maker activities from informal setting into the formal school setting. Teachers need adequate funding, administrative support, and appropriate professional development in order to effectively establish and implement an inclusive maker space in formal K-12 school settings.

The research for this literature review was obtained through Scholar One searches.

Additionally, other pertinent resources were gathered from Google Scholar searches, websites, blogs, webinars, and workshops. Many of the resources for maker education are open source which means that the originators of the resources are sharing their instructions, templates, or contents with online communities (Vossoughi, Hooper, & Escudé, 2016). The goal of sharing of resources is to encourage collaborative and open innovation. These resources will be necessary and acceptable to complete this research because of the emerging and evolving criteria regarding maker education and its burgeoning usage due to social media. The three main sections of this literature review will have conclusions noting the main ideas of each strand and an overall summary at the end of chapter will connect the strands.

John Dewey and Progressive Education

Maker Education is a mindset with strong connections in John Dewey’s (1938) philosophy of progressive education that is also foundational with experiential education, constructivism, constructionism, project-based learning (PBL), STEM, and STEAM education.

Dewey despised the automated, mechanistic, and highly ordered factory system of schools that 39 came out of the Industrial Revolution because their mission was to prepare students to work in factory settings (Martinez & Stager, 2013a). He also believed that the pedagogy and curriculum choices in traditional schools were not developmentally aligned with the academic needs of children. Dewey felt that the American school system placed too much emphasis on the wrong goals and was to blame for not educating students to develop the critical thinking skills necessary to be discriminating members of society (Gordon, 2016). Dewey believed that the endurance of a democratic society depended on input from not only the wealthy or influential people, but from all citizens. Therefore, the democratic society would benefit by providing a progressive education for all students.

John Dewey maintained that the education of individuals was not limited to the amount of time they attended school but was a lifelong process of learning that was driven by intrinsic motivation and also skepticism to external influences by those in power. Most important was

Dewey’s vision for the purpose of education which was to prepare a nation’s youth to meet the challenges of the future by making virtuous choices as educated and informed citizens.

Moreover, Dewey felt that the legitimacy of a democracy depended on that nation’s ability to educate its citizens in order for them to have the will and opportunity to commune and debate public issues (Gordon, 2016).

Progressive Education

In his 1938 analysis, Experience and Education , Dewey compared traditional education to progressive education. Dewey noted how developmentally inappropriate the traditional pedagogy was for growing children. He began by describing the traditional education program as

“one of imposition from above and from outside. It imposes adult standards, subject-matter, and methods upon those who are only growing slowly toward maturity” (Dewey, 1938, p. 19). 40

Traditional education typically includes the delivery of knowledge by lecture, reading, or completion of worksheets. Later, assessments of the students’ learning would be gathered only through writing or again by filling in test sheets. Dewey was able to demonstrate to educators how counterintuitive and counterproductive it was to teach outdated curricula in a constantly changing world. “Dewey sought to challenge and change what he considered to be an ineffective, inhumane approach to schooling, especially for K-12 students. In particular, he rejected the consumption of book-based materials, and other secondary sources of knowledge” (Beard, 2018, p. 27). Furthermore, to deliver content to students in isolation from other content areas provided no connections to the real world to produce any understandings that might be gained. Doing busy work or a project that had no connections or relevance to the world fragmented and muddled the learning for students.

In traditional schools, young minds memorized facts without question, anachronistic content from books or lectures. Dewey noted how traditional school pedagogy was based on the culture of a society that looked only to the past and not the future. Dewey saw the irony in this static point of view since he believed that our American society was constantly evolving

(Dewey, 1938). He warned that a traditional school education did not prepare or empower students to ask questions in order to keep those in power in check. Dewey understood the purpose of the Machine Age, factory style of education, as it was explained in the 1909 address to the New York City High School Teachers Association by Woodrow Wilson:

We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of

persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forego the privileges

of a liberal education and to fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks

(Wilson, 1909, para. 10). 41

Machine Age schooling along with the fixed mindset allowed those with power and money to retain their power and money, while others who were not allowed access to a liberal education would continue to struggle with social and economic mobility (Edgerton & Roberts, 2014; Socol,

Moran, & Ratliff, 2018).

Dewey and Experiential Education

Dewey understood that humans – children and adults - learned and retained information best from authentic experiences, in their explorations of their surrounding world and by then reflecting upon those interactions. Instead of learning from stale books with old writing, humans engage and learn from actual experiences where they interact with their surroundings, observe the results of those interactions, and then reflect on the events. Dewey (1938) stated, “there is one permanent frame of reference: namely the organic connection between education and personal experience” (p. 25). In the progressive classroom, teachers are coaches and, at best, co- learners with their students in the experiential learning process.

From studying and observing Dewey’s classroom philosophy, educators find his writings about experiential education still relevant today. Educators still look to Dewey’s experiential education since the three main classroom strategies of progressive education have demonstrated their effectiveness in developing the important skills needed in the new global economy. The strategies are allowing students to pursue their own interests - also known as student-centered inquiry-based learning; using interdisciplinary approaches to teach skills and content; and setting up goals and materials into students’ projects - also known as project-based learning, PBL, or experiential education (Little & Ellison, 2015). It is important to note that experiential learning can occur when a student explores or experiences an event or observation without a teacher.

However, experiential education occurs only by the intentional design of a teacher (Beard, 2018). 42

Interestingly, public schools in the United States continue to struggle with changing how skills and content are taught to students. The schedule and structure of the current system of schooling still reflects back to its formulation during the agrarian era with a few adaptations for the Industrial Age. During the Industrial Age, in order to teach the most important skill desired in factory workers – discipline – educators believed that content and skills were most effectively instilled in students with the traditional drill and test methods. The previous education model was based on situational needs of the Industrial Revolution of the mid-1700s to the mid-1800s, when funding for public schools had to be justified by the training of young people for menial labor in factory jobs. These schools were designed in detail to mirror the schedules and structures of factory workers that would train young people to wait in lines, respond to bells as a signal for behavioral transitions, to be compliant and not question authority (Cox, 2018; Kozol, 2005; Little

& Ellison, 2015; Robinson, 2010; Socol et al., 2018). The 45-50 minute blocks of time, the need to teach to the standardized tests to provide accountability for funding, as well as the fear of failure impede the implantation of experiential education in formal school settings. As mentioned by Sir Kenneth Robinson in his RSA Animated TEDTalk, the traditional system of education has been in use for the last century (2010). With few changes to curriculum or pedagogy, the

American education system has become stagnant. Little and Ellison noted the United States education system’s poor results with “1.3 million high school drop-outs in 2014, U.S. teens ranking 25 th among 34 industrialized nations on standardized tests” (2015, p. 6). The feedback from the business sector was that schools were not preparing students for the jobs of the twenty- first century with the necessary skills that are collaterally acquired through experiential learning.

Students lacked key skills such as collaboration, communication, critical and creative thinking.

(Little & Ellison, 2015). 43

Progressive Phobia

When looking at present day education, Dean Kloss (2018) describes how the setting of the traditional public school (TPS) in current times have not changed from the traditional public schools of Dewey’s time that, even then, needed reform. One hundred years after Dewey, traditional public schools use curricula that remains teacher-centered and siloed. Knowledge is still passed from the educator to the student who are passive receivers. Government agencies with little or no insight to the students or their environment establish the curriculum standards that form the classroom lessons each year. The system is focused on competition with the teachers as scorekeepers recording test grades and report cards that determine class rank. In turn, this numeric value is taken into account to determine a student’s academic future. This is a system that contributes to the development of societal hierarchies (Kloss, 2019). In these settings, the teachers continue to be the expert who fills the students, as if they were vessels with content that is disconnected with the other subject matter. Students are then assessed via high stakes testing to determine how well they retained course content. Students are graded and ranked according to their test scores. Little emphasis is placed on collaboration, since students are essentially competing with each other (Kloss, 2018; Little & Ellison, 2015).

Beginning in the 1920s, there was a period of time when some educators in the United

States were dedicated to reforming schools. Progressive education became an influential force in

American schools until World War II when its philosophy was unfortunately associated with leftists. Despite producing positive outcomes for students, the term “progressive” was perceived and feared by the general public to be pro-leftist and thus supportive of Communist views. They also regarded progressive schools as being too permissive, lacking structure, and focusing too much on students’ whims and less on academics (Little & Ellison, 2015; Socol et al., 2018). 44

Ultimately, “the conflict between social and economic construction, economics, and of course, war efforts won out” (Socol et al., 2018, p. 46). For some, progressive schools were viewed as part of a socialist agenda and thus, a threat to a free society. For others, these social and economic constructions exemplified Bourdieu’s theory of social reproduction and explain why funding and initiatives by those in power would allow only controlled systems of education that would enable the ones in power to remain in power (Edgerton & Roberts, 2014). By the 1950’s, most public schools returned to the low-cost efficiency model that was based on the Machine

Age assembly line where students were again sorted by age groups instead of abilities and the curriculum was again compartmentalized.

Revival of Dewey’s Philosophy

For the last 50 years, the majority of our public schools were again using traditional methods to teach to the test with disappointing results and high stress. Then, in 2015, intriguing data revealed that students in Finland and China scored higher than other developed nations on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests. The average scores of teenagers in the United States were 25 th out of 65 nations participating (Fensterwald, 2013). The students from Finland and China had been implementing Dewey’s experiential educational pedagogy to promote innovation and creativity. Both countries had educational practices based on the concept of progressive education – an American idea - for the purpose of creating innovative and motivated learning environment for their students. Proponents of Progressive Education believed that Dewey’s 1938 education principles demonstrated the most effective ways to deliver content and promote skills to students (Kozol, 2005; Little & Ellison, 2015).

It is ironic that the United States had looked at the excellent test scores of Finland and

China and sought to learn from their educators how best to teach our students. “As Diane 45

Ravitch noted, Finland actually ‘borrowed’ its main ideas from America, ideas that included equality of educational opportunity, individualized instruction, and cooperative learning…Most of its borrowing derived from the work of philosopher John Dewey” (Little & Ellison, 2015, p.

203). We have had the answers and the ways to address the educational issues all along.

Blikstein (2017) claims that the maker movement had been a revolution in the making for the last century with roots in the following: student-driven curricula, project-based learning, constructivism, constructionism, and critical pedagogy. Furthermore, the maker education pedagogy was based on then philosophies of progressive educators such as Dewey and experiential education pedagogies (Blikstein, 2017). The debate between traditional and progressive educators had been swinging from one side to the other with traditionalist educators wielding the most control over school systems. Dewey (1938) believed education should develop skills such as collaboration, communication, creative and critical thinking. However, these topics were previously considered soft-skills since they were not measurable in a quantitative manner such as the content found in books. In the last fifteen years, “an unprecedented acceptance has emerged for many of the ideas of progressive education” (Blikstein, 2017, p. 4). Collaboration, communication, creative and critical thinking are now highly demanded abilities considered twenty-first century skills (Blikstein, 2017).

Dewey’s (1938) philosophy of education can be accommodative of social and economic changes in the world. He believed that students should be authentically engaged in projects from multiple content areas that were relevant to the surroundings of the students. Moreover, Dewey understood the need for teachers to find creative techniques to engage their students while simultaneously meeting their educational needs. His insights foreshadowed the call for the culturally relevant pedagogy of the last decade by educators such as Lisa Delphit and Joanne 46

Dowdy (2002). Delphit and Dowdy (2002) maintained the importance of teachers’ acknowledging students’ intellectual legacy and sensitivity. Dewey believed that it was the responsibility of the teacher to determine equally important factors with regard to each individual student when designing a lesson. First, the project assigned to the student must be relevant to the student’s environment and life at that particular moment in time and that the student possesses the capabilities and foundational knowledge to address the project. Then, the project should be interesting to the learner, so they feel compelled to generate new questions and an extension of ideas. “The new facts and new ideas thus obtained become the ground for further experiences in which new problems are presented. The process is a continuous spiral” (Dewey, 1938, p. 79).

The process of spiraled learning mirrors the iterations of the engineering design process, STEM education, and maker education that are a series of steps taken in order to solve a problem.

Students are encouraged to learn from their failures (Villegas, 2019). All knowledge is built on other knowledge. As stated by Dewey (1938), “Every experience is a moving force” (p. 38).

Possibly the most important, yet overlooked point that Dewey made was that too much emphasis is placed on the products of education and not enough on the process of education. In the student’s process of exploring a topic are the indirect knowledge and skills gained along the journey. A common mistake in teaching is to assume that students only learn in a linear manner – one topic at a time. Dewey placed emphasis on the process of learning where the process is the journey and the product is the destination. Dewey identified the learning acquired during this process as collateral learning . “Collateral learning in the way of formation of enduring attitudes, of likes and dislikes, may be and often is much more important than the spelling lesson or lesson in geography or history that is learned” (Dewey, 1938, p. 48). 47

Dewey’s (1938) schools emphasized the need for teachers to provide opportunities for students to develop important lifelong skills such as communication skills, creative and critical thinking skills, and collaboration. Now, known as the 4-C’s of STEAM education, these skills are highly desirable 21 st century soft-skills that employers seek in new hires (Maslyk, 2016). For educators around the world, Dewey’s (1938) philosophy of education would eventually inspire them for generations. One hundred years later, Dewey’s philosophy remains pertinent to the mindset of many modern-day educators (Brown, 1990; Martinez & Stager, 2019).

Summary

In 1938, John Dewey published Education & Experience in response to what he considered the anachronistic and inhumane schools that were a product of the Industrial

Revolution. His philosophy of education resulted in the creation of progressive schools that emphasized a democratic education that would prepare students to be well-informed citizens who could make reasonable decisions for the future benefit of a strong and intelligent nation. Dewey advocated for teachers to instill in their students the motivation for life-long learning through the pedagogy of experiential education in and out of the classroom. He firmly believed learning should be experienced firsthand, projects should have relevance to a student’s environment and be engaging, and that knowledge should build on all former information became the foundation of project-based learning. “Central to the maker pedagogy is that learning must be meaningful and have a purpose for the child. It is about creating meaningful products - not just doing for the sake of doing” (Boileau, 2014). Thus, Dewey’s pedagogy of experiential education is fundamental in the transition from STEM education into STEAM education and eventually maker education. The historical timeline will now be explored.

48

From STEM to STEAM to Maker Education

Crucial events in history have influenced the educational mindset and trends of American society. As such, the focus of the United States education system has adapted and evolved in response to changing times. At the end of World War II, the fear of Communism gaining a stronger foothold in the world permeated the American psyche. In the 1950s, the civil rights movement added more apprehension to already tumultuous times (Steeves, Bernhardt, Burns, &

Lombard, 2009). Nevertheless, from the 1950s to the 1960s, American ingenuity made the

United States a leader in the world for creativity and new ideas. The culture for the inventiveness was allowed to exist in school systems that were locally controlled. Within the local systems, funding and support was allocated to allow for diverse student learning preferences. Vocational or technical education, formerly known as shop classes or home economics provide experiential content. However, these classes have traditionally placed emphasis on the proper use of tools and procedural knowledge. Students were being channeled into the vocational track as an alternative to the college preparatory program. These classes taught useful life skills including cooking and sewing, auto shop, wood shop, electricity, photography, and printing. In high schools, additional business track courses taught typing, stenography, business machines, and accounting (Little &

Ellison, 2015; Savage, 2019).

The Space Race

When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, the race for space became a priority and driving force pushing for rigor in American education. In order to allay the fear, surprise, and anxiety of the general American populace, President Eisenhower worked with Congress to include more federal oversight into school curriculum. Within a year, the National Defense

Education Act (NDEA) of 1957 noted the shortcomings of the education system and laid out 49 solutions to address the vast range of complications. The US education policy shifted from state and local governments having greater control of the school systems to the federal government gaining increased control in order to address national education issues. There were great increases in funding along with a legislative framework that included data-infused rationalizations, federal oversight, competition, and nationwide school reform. “Second, there was a growing fear the United States was losing its political and technical standing in the world.

As a result, failures in education became closely associated with weaknesses in national security”

(Steeves et al., 2009, p. 2). These initiatives were the beginning of the national framework of looking to the education system for addressing social or political problems. “If identified as a national issue, then federal power could logically offer the solution through schools – increasingly less often guided by educators – more top down than bottom up” (Steeves et al.,

2009, p. 1).

In 1961, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin orbited the Earth and established the Soviets’ lead in space exploration (Hayden, Geras, Gerth, & Crespin, 2017). Shortly after, President John

F. Kennedy challenged a nation and the world in his speech to students at Rice University,” We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard” (Kennedy, 1962, para. 13). President Kennedy’s challenge fueled a patriotic spirit to race to the Moon. In an era of intense demand for creative and critical thinking, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) yielded scientific knowledge and the collateral spin-off inventions and medicines that benefitted the world. However, although the

United States astronauts landed on the Moon in 1969, as a nation, American students were unable to academically maintain global dominance. 50

As a result of the Space Race, more focus was placed on science and math scores. The fear of falling behind the Soviets lead to standardized testing and the back to basics type of schooling. By the 1980s and 1990s, vocational classes were fiercely eliminated due to more focus being placed on standardized testing, college track classes, and lack of funding (Savage,

2019; Socol et al., 2018). The format of the education system returned to the factory style of the previous century, placing emphasis on students memorizing facts and knowing how to handle numbers. Dewey’s progressive education philosophy was not perceived as providing enough structure or rigor to push American students’ achievements past the students of superpower rivals.

Accountability and Standardization

In the publication, A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education,

1983), then Secretary of Education, T.H. Bell noted the poor science and math scores of US students. The report concluded with the warning, “the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and as a people” (Little & Ellison, 2015, p. 48). In response to the demands by the private sector for greater national economic security, education policy makers were even more determined to prove that the American education system could still regain their edge. Their response led to another series of school reforms.

Although there was a push for more students to take science, technology, engineering and mathematics, the curriculum was not integrated. “In the early 2000s, the National Science

Foundation (NSF) coined the acronym STEM: learning based on the idea that science, technology, engineering, and math are interrelated and should be taught in an integrated way”

(Maslyk, 2016, p. 6). In order to develop a population that was able to keep our nation 51 technologically and financially competitive with other countries, the U.S. educational system needed to cultivate more student interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

STEM education was developed to train a population with the high skills needed to build a strong STEM workforce. However, the STEM content areas continued to be taught in isolation, thus students saw few connections between the subjects and their own world (Maslyk, 2016).

One reason was only science and mathematics were core subjects with adopted state standards.

Technology and engineering were broad terms that caused confusion and challenges for educators.

In 2002, politicians responded by demanding increased educational accountability. This resulted in the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act under President George W.

Bush. The NCLB act initiated a wave of intense education reform, including requiring states to report test results in separate categories according to different criteria such as “economic disadvantage, race and ethnicity, disability, and English language proficiency – in an effort to make achievement gaps transparent” (Frey, Mandlawitz, & Alvarez, 2012, p. 67). Now, teachers were being held accountable by way of rigorous student testing. The school curriculum was redesigned in alignment with content and performance standards. The NCLB tests measured students’ abilities to perform well on standardized tests, not actual comprehension of content information. When students prepared for standardized exams, they were taught that answers may be either right or wrong or that the correct answers were one of three of four choices. However, the real world is complex and nuanced. It does not exist or operate in absolutes (Land, 2013).

Since the federal policies distributed funding to schools relative to students’ standardized test scores, administrators understood that a school’s existence depended on test scores. In turn, educators also implicitly understood the correlation between their jobs and student test scores. 52

The emphasis on creative and critical thinking in schools had been diminished by focus and funding on standardized tests.

Integrating the Arts Into STEM to Yield STEAM

To rejuvenate the American spirit of ingenuity, in 2008, President Barack Obama announced, “Today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation. It’s time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and work to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology”

(Land, 2013, p. 547). With the support of the President, as well as other public entities such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and Project Lead the Way (PTLW), a variety of STEM projects were funded. However, despite significant support and funding for STEM education, content was still taught in traditional manners with the very few changes. The numbers of students choosing STEM careers had not increased (Rockland et al., 2010). The STEM

Education News noted the statistic that the STEM fields would have 1.2 million job openings by the year 2018, of which many would go unfilled due to crucial projected shortages of qualified applicants (Maslyk, 2016). Shaffer (2013) noted that, as a nation, education curriculum must be created in a manner to allow STEM to remain relevant. For decades, STEM fields have had shortages of qualified workers. Even though jobs in STEM fields have been increasing three times faster than jobs in other areas of the economy, not enough trained American citizens are in line to take on these jobs with prolonged success (Land, 2013).

In 2010, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were released by the federal government as guidelines for states to follow in order to provide a national curriculum that would help reduce the disparities between different state standards. The CCSS focused on “real- 53 world application of knowledge and skills, push for competencies in critical thinking, the use of relevant technology and media, and focus on student collaboration” (Maslyk, 2016, p. 17).

The CCSS goals aimed to improve educational expectations by providing more consistency nationally, offer a more focused national curriculum in the fashion of high achieving nations, be more efficient for other agencies, such as textbook publishing companies, providers of professional development, and teacher education programs, and to standardize student assessments (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011). Yet, accessibility to STEM knowledge remains elusive to many underrepresented students due to their lack access to STEM knowledge capital (Lynch et al., 2017).

In 2013, the National Research Council released the Next Generation Science Standards

(NGSS) to raise the awareness and the level of understanding of engineering in the classroom. In recent years, the integration of engineering principles into the K-12 classroom curriculum has gained global attention. Research supported making more connections between engineering and

K-12 science to better educate students to have a more intelligent society that could address the challenges of our advancing technological world. The NGSS emphasized problem solving, using the scientific and engineering design methods, and interdisciplinary activities. NGSS recommend that science education should focus around scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and core content areas. Engineering practices include setting up investigations around student questions, learning from designing and making models, and allowing students to collectively share and analyze data. Crosscutting concepts are the major science ideas that are applicable in all areas of science. Examples of crosscutting concepts are cause and effect, patterns, and the connections between structures and functions (Maslyk, 2016). “The core areas, as defined by NGSS, are made up of physical science; life science; earth and space science; and 54 engineering, technology, and application” (Maslyk, 2016, p. 18). However, even with the push for more engineering in the classroom, there were struggles with implementation. One barrier was that educators already had too much content to cover. Without adequate professional development, adding engineering would merely increase another content area to the K-12 curriculum that would be siloed like science, technology, and mathematics (Blikstein, 2017;

Moore, Tank, Glancy, & Kersten, 2015).

Educators realized that teaching the contents of STEM in isolation from each other was not engaging students, nor was it effective. “In 2012, the idea of STEAM (Science, Technology,

Engineering, Art, and Mathematics) education started to gain momentum in innovative schools around the United States and several countries around the world” (Quigley & Herro, 2019, p. 1).

Educators hoped that the interdisciplinary delivery of science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics content would be the key to increasing the number of American students pursuing careers in STEM fields. The STEAM pedagogy provided opportunities for students to show creativity and originality, as well as growth in their resilience and perseverance from multiple iterations in engineering a problem. (Maslyk, 2016; Peppler & Wohlwend, 2018). By integrating the arts into the STEM fields, students are provided with opportunities to express themselves in a greater variety of ways (Martinez & Stager, 2013a, 2013b).

Educators found that adding the arts to STEM content promoted creativity, imagination, collaboration, written and verbal communication, critical thinking, and problem solving. “By allowing for creativity and critical thinking, teaching and learning move away from convergent thinking to divergent thinking” (Maslyk, 2016, p. 8). However, this pedagogy is more work for teachers because divergent thinking forces the students and teachers to consider problems that do not have definitive solutions in the manual or answer key book. Maslyk (2016) recalls a Google 55

Hangout where STEAM maker educators from the eastern United States met virtually. The teachers set a goal to discuss the shift from STEM to STEAM and noted that inclusion of the arts provided all types of learners with bridges of accessibility for STEM content. Eventually, the focus of the meeting shifted to the main concerns of the educators in regard to maker education

(Maslyk, 2016).

One of the most important aspects of STEAM education is that the students “need to fail and to fail often” (Fredette, 2013, p. 38). As indicated by the engineering design process in

Figure 3, when students failed, they were given an opportunity to use their creative and critical thinking skills to attempt to solve the problem again. The Engineering Design Process is used by engineers, designers, and inventors who use the steps to solve almost any kind of problem. 56

Figure 3. Engineering design process. Adapted from WGBH Education Foundation (2013).

The steps involve analyzing, collaboration, communication, and both critical and creative thinking skills. The circular loop in the flowchart also shows that it is important to learn from failing. Thomas Edison failed 10,000 times before finding the right material to make the filament of the light bulb. Teachers need to allow the students to think for themselves to work through the problems (Fredette, 2013). Repeated iterations with constant adaptations to improve a design, help students build their patience and grit. Using this approach to show children that they can overcome challenges produces resilient children who are not afraid of failures and 57 teaches them that no problem is unsolvable. Children learn to trust their own judgment in trying our different techniques to solve a problem without sequential instructions from the teacher.

“This stance can be a crucial change for children who are used to getting explicit directions every minute of every day” (Martinez & Stager, 2014, p. 13). Adding the “A” for the arts and humanities to STEM content areas made the difficult to grasp subjects more appealing and less intimidating to students. Inspired by the positive feedback from STEAM educators, other teachers began creating their own acronyms and curricula. Examples are STEM-X for science, technology, engineering, mathematics with extra content areas, TEAMS places emphasis on collaboration in STEAM; STEAMIE is STEAM with industrial education; STREAM is STEAM that includes reading; and STEAM-G includes geography. There are endless possibilities

(Maslyk, 2016). The acronyms were clever and trendy for a short time. However, merely rebranding the curriculum while using the same pedagogy and tools did not result in higher test scores or yield more creative and inspired students. Unfortunately, many STEAM classrooms were actually STEM lessons with the addition of stickers (Clapp & Jimenez, 2016). For example, students would construct an object such as a periscope according to a template and instructions.

The A for art came at the end when students were encouraged to decorate their periscope with tape and stickers.

As Martinez and Stager (2019) remarked, the focus of educators needed to be on

“dismantling the artificial boundaries between subject areas erected in the late 19 th century” (p.

57) Educators needed to make the learning for the students a more natural process. In order for students to want to solve their own problems, the projects they tackled had to have personal relevance and depth. STEM has evolved into more than an acronym for science, technology, engineering, and math content (Riordan, 2013). STEM learning when taught properly is 58 experiential learning (Martinez & Stager, 2019; Maslyk, 2016). According to Riordan, the siloed content subjects need to be integrated “via problem-focused experiences” (2013, para. 4). STEM learning, in response to demands of the 21 st century innovation economy, has become experiential learning and focuses more on dispositions. The qualities are “readiness to collaborate, attention to multiple perspectives, initiative, persistence, and curiosity” (Riordan,

2013, para. 1). Memorizing specific content in STEM learning is no longer the focus. It is more important for students to learn from their reactions to the content, and then transform it by shaping or applying it to new situations.

Possibilities of Maker Education

One solution came from a growing trend called the maker movement. This was propelled by the magazine Make and founder Dale Dougherty and the excitement of makers around the world. The first Maker Faire in 2006 took place in San Mateo, California; it piqued the interest of artists, designers, crafters, and engineers who enjoyed working with their hands to make things. Martinez and Stager (2013a) described the maker movement as a globally reaching

“technological and creative revolution” (p. 6) that exemplifies experiential learning and learner- centered teaching. Making, as in the maker movement, refers to incorporating the use of technology such as electronics, 3D printers, programming and creating artifacts. However, the basic term making has been a human endeavor whether out of necessity or as a leisure activity. In this case, making has meant a wide range of activities that included designing, building, cooking, sewing, robotics, welding, painting, and crafting (Chu et al., 2016; Clapp & Jimenez, 2016;

Martin, 2015).

Dougherty explained that the maker movement is more than merely adding technology to crafting. “It has also become a social movement that includes all kinds of makers, connecting to 59 the past as well as changing how we look at the future” (Dougherty, 2013, p. 1). Makers want to be people who are not confined to exist only as consumers; they reject the notion that humans are merely data for demographic studies full of algorithms. The makers strive for a renewal of the primal need to create artifacts that will define the current culture. Moreover, Dougherty proposed that the maker movement had the potential to democratize education by making learning more relatable and accessible to all students because of the low cost of materials and tools.

Despite criticism concerning lack of economic, racial, cultural, and gender diversity of makers and calls for critical making, the needs and possibilities for applications of maker education in the K-12 classrooms gave educators hope that this alliance may help raise greater interest and engagement in STEM topics and careers. Steadily, technology in the form of computers and cellphones provided students with access to more information and thus more choices in their lives than ever before. Schools needed to offer creative and stimulating learning experiences in order to maintain student interest. Unfortunately, the academic system of standardization and teaching to the test was not adequately preparing students academically for the jobs of the future. In order to enact change in schools, Dougherty (2013) noted that educators needed to foster making as a mindset in school settings, not just to adopt a technique or set of routines. The maker mindset included traits such as resourcefulness, willingness to take risks, creativity, resilience, persistence, generosity, and helpfulness. These same qualities are listed among the 21 st century skills that students should acquire in order to be ready and qualified for the jobs of the future (Gerstein, 2014; Martinez & Stager, 2019).

Educators with a background in experiential education saw the alignment between the ideas behind Dougherty’s maker education movement (2013) and the principles proposed by

Dewey (1938). In the early 1970s the Association for Experiential Education listed the key 60 principles of experiential education. Gerstein (2014) noted points of the principles that are congruent with maker education in Figure 4. Dougherty suggested that by fostering maker education, educators are helping students to grow physically, mentally, and emotionally.

Figure 4 . Principles of maker education as experiential education. Adapted from Gerstein

(2014).

Maker education aims to generate students with the capabilities and willingness to tackle a task as opposed to the student who must be assigned a task (Dougherty & Conrad, 2016). Dewey’s criteria entailed higher expectations for student outcomes resulting from the curriculum. For

Dewey, experiences could be deemed to be educational if they helped the student develop intellectually and morally, if the experience or project contributed to the community in some way, and last, if the experience led to positive results such as the student becoming more assertive, self-guided, and purposeful (Gerstein, 2014). 61

Continuing Dewey’s progressive tradition, in 1960 Seymour Papert “built his theory of learning on the constructivist theories of Jean Piaget, stating that learning is an active construction of knowledge in the learner’s mind and that knowledge is not simply transmitted from teacher to student” (Üçgül & Cagiltay, 2014, p. 2). Papert defines constructionism simply as “learning by making” (Üçgül & Cagiltay, 2014, p. 2). Papert’s theory stated, “children can learn deeply when they build their own meaningful projects in a community of learners and reflect carefully on the process” (Bers, Flannery, Kazakoff, & Sullivan, 2014, p. 146). The constructionist classroom allows children the freedom to discover their own interests through the use of technology (Bers et al., 2014). Thus, the learning by doing approach has roots in education through Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism, and Dewey’s experiential learning.

These three learning theories are a framework for educators to understand the power and potential of a STEAM classroom where Piaget’s adage “knowledge is a consequence of experience” is the norm (as cited in Martinez & Stager, 2014, p. 13). The implementation of

STEAM curricula is in alignment with the national goal of educating to develop an intelligent society. “The maker movement values human passion, capability, and the ability to make things happen and solve problems anywhere, anytime” (Martinez & Stager, 2014, p. 13). After all, “we teach children science and math so they can make the world a better place, not so they can pass tests” (Martinez & Stager, 2013a, p. 39). Combining STEAM with maker education could revolutionize learning in the formal K-12 school setting.

Summary

The history of maker education identifies how this pedagogy has evolved responsively to the changing culture of the United States. STEM education germinated after the launching of

Sputnik in 1957 in response to global competition for space domination. In the 1980s, STEM 62 education evolved into STEAM education with the inclusion of the visual and performing arts to change students’ perceptions of STEM to be more inviting. Then, maker education grew out of a

DIY to maker culture in the early 2000s that sought seeking stewardship of its own sustainability. Inspired by a society in search of connections to its local habitats and resources, the do-it-yourself (DIY) generation has inspired STEAM education in informal and formal settings. For K-12 formal school settings, the result is the maker education mindset – a derivative of Dewey’s progressive education philosophy. And thus, the American education pendulum has swung back to a modernized version of progressive education. Educators must now find the most effective methods to implement the STEAM curriculum through the maker education pedagogy.

Implementing Maker Education in School Settings

The implementation of STEAM curricula through maker education has gained momentum in formal education settings in order to recruit students to science and engineering careers (Martin, 2015). Maslyk (2016) used the term, STEAM makers because the pedagogy was interdisciplinary and inclusive of the different learning preferences by organically engaging students to learn by solving problems. No two maker spaces have been alike nor should they have been (Oliver, 2016a). Every school situation has been different, therefore, there were no specific formulas nor checklists for establishing STEAM maker labs in schools. However, successful educators gathered insights from their own observations and experiences, which could inform others about the options for building their own equitable STEAM maker spaces within the parameters of their own distinct settings in the future. There are several elements that educators need to consider, namely the where, who, and how of maker education; this overlap, which makes it difficult to fully compartmentalize the topics. The first subsection will discuss 63 the settings, which include space, tools, and materials. The next subsection will examine the stakeholders, including administrators and supporters, and the most crucial factor in establishing a K-12 school maker space: the selection of the right educator(s) to pave the path for the implementation of the school’s maker program. This subsection will also discuss how these maker educators as adult learners become adequately trained. The final subsection will describe the maker mindset and how the maker classroom can be more inclusive. The struggles and needs for the maker pedagogy to be inclusive and culturally relevant in order to be effective in formal

K-12 school settings will be examined because of the noticeable lack of women, girls, and people of color (PoC) (Buechley, 2014). Suggestions from experienced educators for addressing the concerns of critical making will also be explored in this final subsection.

Maker Spaces, Equipment, and Materials

In the implementation of the STEAM maker space, educators need to remember that even though the setting is called a maker space, the focus should not so much about the space, but more about the philosophy, mission, and mindset of the collective learning community. It is important to be mindful of the developmental needs, interests, and abilities of the students.

Having a maker space that is inviting not only to students but to other teachers in the building can contribute greatly to the success of the maker program.

The maker space setting. A range of spaces could be considered school maker spaces including rolling carts that travel from classroom to classroom with specific tools and materials for projects, mobile vans or buses stocked with equipment and supplies that travel to various locations, repurposed classrooms, and increasingly often, a repurposed or modified library. Some settings have implemented the maker mindset in a schoolwide manner so individual classrooms may have workbenches or a section of their classroom dedicated to STEAM maker tools and 64 supplies (Maslyk, 2016; Oliver, 2016b). Nolin (2014) suggested that schools should encourage whole faculties to teach through the maker pedagogy and avoid the mistake of the one-room computer lab of the early Internet age. Students should not get the wrong impression that the

STEAM maker space is the only setting for innovation. It is not absolutely necessary to have a specifically identified maker space in order to be a maker. “Students can be makers in any classroom, in any grade level and in any subject” (Gerstein, 2016, p. 16). After all, being makers depends on the mindset of the participants.

For schools that have constructed a specified STEAM maker space, there were many factors to consider. The space needed to be open, well lit, and inviting. Maximum flexibility in the way of shelving, furniture, and even workstations were possible if units were mounted on swivel casters with brakes. Doing so allows for a range of rotating activities to take place. Setting aside an area where students gather facilitates collaboration and exchange of ideas. The maker areas need to be enticing to attract first time visitors and also have lasting draw for successive, complex creative activities. Having adequate utilities to power the equipment and ventilation for soldering or paint fumes is important. The planners should aim to reduce or eliminate extension cords and power strips by having adequate electrical outlets. A sink area is helpful for clean-up and maintenance. Multiple, mobile dry-erase boards would be helpful for brainstorming. All hard surfaces, such as counters, worktables and floors should be easy to clean (Kurti, Kurti, &

Fleming, 2014b; Oliver, 2016b). Additionally, there is the need for storage and display areas, including an enclosed area or closet that may be locked for more expensive equipment.

Maker equipment and tools. Prior to purchasing tools and equipment, educators need to be mindful of budget constraints. Many teachers reached out through social media such as

GoFundMe fundraiser accounts on Facebook for specific items. Other STEAM maker settings 65 have been funded through grants or parent-teacher organizations. Maslyk (2016) suggests that a simple Google search can provide a list of many applicable corporate grants for K-12 schools.

Although maker spaces have been set up with expensive equipment such as 3d printers and laser cutters, many labs have been created with only $100 and using low-tech, inexpensive tools that may be found at yard sales, second hand stores, Goodwill, home improvement stores, office supply stores, and dollar stores (Kurti et al., 2014b; Martinez & Stager, 2013a; Oliver, 2016b).

Kurti et al. (2014b) suggested that teachers should take surveys to gather input on student interests and concerns. This information would be used to determine the allocation of the budget, types of projects for students and also help with procuring general tools and suitable building materials. Most STEAM maker labs have a range of simple tools such as glue guns, safety goggles, utility knives, scissors, hand drills, hammers, screwdrivers, pliers, rulers, tape measures, hole punchers, and small hand saws. A few electric tools such as soldering irons, electric drills and jigsaws would need proper training for novice maker students. Some STEAM maker spaces also include sewing supplies for hand sewing and sewing machines (Kurti et al., 2014b; Maslyk,

2016; Martinez & Stager, 2013a).

If funds are available, then some expensive items may be purchased. These items include robotic kits such as Lego Mindstorms, VEX, Edison V2.0, and Spheros which teach design, building, and programming. Kits such as SnapCircuits, Makey Makey, and Squishy Circuits teach about electricity and circuits. The advantages of kits include having the pre-determined curricula and the flashy commercialized packaging to easily engage students. The disadvantages include the high cost, losing small parts that hampers the assembly of designs, and having adequate storage. Teachers should note that maker education is not based on the hardware such as the robotics or electronics kits, the high-tech tools such as 3-D printer, laser cutters, or 66 computer numerical control (CNC) machines for precision cutting (Gerstein, 2016). The expensive kits and components can eclipse the more basic learning tools, but they also have the potential to hinder the purpose of maker education to develop creativity and resourcefulness.

Materials for making . The consumable supplies include inexpensive items to purchase, such as tape – cellophane, packaging, masking, and duct, various types of glue, nails and screws,

PVC pipes of all sizes, office supplies such as paper clips and brass fasteners, and various types and weights of paper. (Kurti et al., 2014b; Martinez & Stager, 2013a; Maslyk, 2016). Materials that can be recycled or repurposed may be easy to obtain by sharing a list of requested items through a school website or social media. These items include recycled plastic containers, tag board, cereal boxes, shoe boxes, metal hangers, paper towel rolls, yarn, fabric, cardboard boxes, and a myriad of other items that may be used for constructions. In learning about constructions, taking objects apart or deconstruction activities also teach how all machines are combinations of simple machines. Broken appliances such as record players, hand mixers, hair dryers or old toys could be used. Deconstruction of common appliances teaches students about the design of individual components, how the components work together, and the causes for the appliances to break or wear down. Student challenges could include taking apart and rebuilding the machines.

More advanced challenges could include combining different machines to build something new such as a unicycle from an old bicycle (Kurti et al., 2014b; Maslyk, 2016). Maslyk (2016) cautions teachers to make sure students know which maker space classroom items are permissible for deconstruction and tinkering. A student took apart the hard drive of a classroom computer after spotting the taped “broken” note meant for the school computer technician

(Maslyk, 2016, p. 69). There are a variety of materials available for a low-cost or even free; 67 objects from nature such as branches, pinecones, or seashells are also suitable for organic maker projects (Gerstein, 2016).

As noted by Oliver (2016b), the Youth Makerspace Playbook compiled by the Maker

Education Initiative (2015) is invaluable as a free downloadable online guidebook for outfitting the STEAM maker space. Educators should consider that each maker space is different because each setting is different (Oliver, 2016a, 2016b). The responsive classroom environment is possible when teachers are mindful of students’ interests and to be pro-active in obtaining alternative tools and materials when required by the projects (Kurti, Kurti, & Fleming, 2014a;

Oliver, 2016b).

The Human Factors

Adapting to change is difficult. The growing trend for maker education is formal school setting will require changes in pedagogy, changes in the physical layout of schools and classrooms, changes in the design of curricula, and changes in the way teachers and students think. Teachers need support from all levels of the school system to effectively enact the transformations of STEAM maker education (Maslyk, 2016).

Administrator support. Initially to establish a school maker space, district and principal leadership need to be in place. “As instructional leaders, principals are charged with creating and implementing a shared vision of teaching and learning...this has less to do with conspicuously displayed vision and mission statements than it does with trust and support” (Harper, 2017, p.

71). Maslyk (2016) provided several suggestions to build and gain support; most methods rely on maker space professional development through workshops and networking. Initiating interest in

STEAM maker education often begins with a visit to a school that has already begun their implementation. Meeting other administrators, educators, and students to gather feedback on the 68 outcomes of their maker space endeavors can help allay the dread and fear of criticism that comes with change.

Administrators need to allow the maker teachers enough time to experiment and try new things. Principals who are changemakers find the funds, allow their teachers the time and opportunities to explore on their own and to learn from their failed attempts, and seek out professional development for the maker teachers (Maslyk, 2016). These principals understand the significance of experiential learning to the teachers themselves in order to acquire the content knowledge needed to operate the maker space, to design a maker curriculum, and to implement a transformative maker space for the school.

Parental and community support . Overcoming the doubts of parents and community members who are accustomed to a school setting, pedagogy, and curriculum that are traditional is difficult. In order for parents and others to understand the benefits of maker education, some schools have invited parents and the public to visit in an after-school open-house where there are opportunities to tinker and play. The students can display their projects and also be the guides.

The teachers and administrators should be ready to answer questions from anxious parents:

● Will the projects be graded?

● How will the projects be graded?

● Will there be homework?

● Is my child learning?

● They look like they are having fun. How can this be learning?

● How do you keep the students from getting hurt?

● How will this type of education help my child get accepted to a university? 69

Answers to these questions may vary, but the willingness of the teachers to listen and explain will ease the doubts of the parents (Martinez & Stager, 2019; Maslyk, 2016).

Bringing in community through parents, educators from higher education, artists, makers, business, and industry experts as vested contributors also builds grassroots support (Maslyk,

2016; Oliver, 2016a). “Many entrepreneurial-oriented makerspaces have been financed by commercial industries that manufacture and sell the design and fabrication tools” (Bevan, 2017, p. 80). Corporations fund the spaces through grants and donations in effort to help aspiring tinkerers and inventors create prototypes of their designs.

Actualization of the maker educator . No STEAM maker space location, set of tools, or equipment could be more crucial to the success of a maker lab than the dedicated educator

(Oliver, 2016a, 2016b). First, the administrators and teachers need to consider which teacher(s) demonstrate the most qualifications to undertake the maker education initiative. Because maker education in formal K-12 school setting is still emergent, the first teachers to establish maker labs and become successful needed to be leaders and pioneers. These teachers had few guidelines and no manuals and so were self-taught adult learners.

Accommodators. “With every initiative, there are teachers who jump right on board”

(Maslyk, 2016, p. 27). These teachers are architects of change and it is difficult to restrain their enthusiasm for learning new technologies and pedagogies. The second group of teachers need a nudge or some assistance, mainly because they are intimidated by the technical jargon. Allowing these teachers time to try a few simple maker projects can gradually increase their confidence.

The last group of teachers are the most resistant to change. Encouragement from peers and school leaders is vital to establishing buy-in from reluctant teachers. Moreover, administrators need to recognize that the teachers in each school setting are individually experiencing changes 70 at different stages in their personal growth. In the selection of personnel, by observing the teachers’ performances, surveying the teachers personal learning preferences, and utilizing of

Kolb’s matrix of learning styles, administrators may find the educators who are the accommodators – the teachers who are the most passionate and willing to take risks would be the most qualified (Kurti et al., 2014a; Martinez & Stager, 2019; Maslyk, 2016; Muscat &

Mollicone, 2012; Rumson, 2018).

Educators as adult learners. The second factor to recognize in developing maker educators is that the teacher as a learner is different from the child as a learner. Educators often erroneously think that instruction for adults and children are the same (Bonner, 1982). The study of adult learning or andragogy is defined by Knowles (1980, p. 43) as “the art and science of helping adults learn, in contrast to pedagogy as the art and science of teaching children.”

Knowles’ meaning of andragogy is based on six main assertions about adult learners:

● The adult learner is autonomous, self-directed, and independent. The learner is

responsible for their own self-education.

● The adult learner has an abundance of prior experiences from which they draw in creating

knowledge from their new experiences.

● The readiness of an adult to learn is directly related to the levels of relevance and

necessity of the content to be learned.

● The focus of an adult learner is on the immediate use of new knowledge for solving

problems and addressing tasks at hand.

● Adult learners tend to be more intrinsically motivated than extrinsically.

● Adult learners need to appreciate the value of the knowledge they are acquiring. 71

Teachers of adult learners should design adult education with these premises in mind (Forrest &

Peterson, 2006; Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007, as cited in Chan, 2010).

The initial educators who are setting the roles, guidelines, and parameters for themselves and subsequent maker educators need to be self-directed and self-taught or autodidactic.

Autodidacticism is learning without the mentoring of masters (Olanipekun, 2018). Sinclair

(2018, para.3) defines it as “the informal, private, self-teaching process during which the self- educator gathers, process, absorbs, and uses new knowledge.” With the proliferation of digital resources, life-long learners are able to teach themselves content and skills - even critical thinking. Certain requirements are necessary in order for the adult learner to learn to teach and self-teach. First, the life-long learner should set a clear goal that is attainable by reaching a series of smaller, well defined steps. Reaching the smaller steps will indicate that progress is being made as a form of self- tracking. The second requirement is for the learner to acquire the foundational training that defines the terms, parameters, tools, and philosophies. Next, the autodidacticist needs to develop critical thinking skills in order to identify and determine the causes of successes and failures in order to find different paths for solving problems. Lastly, the autodidactic maker educators will apply new knowledge to new contexts in order to complete the learning cycle. In learning this way, the individual teacher can learn and unlearn in order to keep up with rapidly changing technology and content (Aufrichtig, 2018; Deveci & Tezcan, 2017).

Maker Mindset Curriculum With Equity and Inclusiveness

STEAM, the maker movement, and maker education have had tensions concerning the lack of diversity and inclusion. It is important to note that the maker movement has also been criticized for its culture where participation is dominated by men of which most are White

(Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). The most vocal and poignant has been Leah Buechley (2014) 72 who showed how in nine years of covers for Dougherty’s Make Magazine, the people on the covers were comprised of 85% men and there were no people of color. Buechley suggested that that the success of the maker movement has given it a responsibility to level the field for women and people of color. She also called for more equitable distribution of funding and showcasing for the softer maker skills such as weaving, knitting, or pottery since they were no less legitimate an example of making than the more technical gadget-laden hobbies (Santo, 2014). Buechley’s advocacy for critical making has raised awareness to maker educators to be more mindful and intentional in the maker classroom (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Vossoughi et al., 2016).

Buechley’s (2014) calls for more equity and access for women and girls, people of color, and individuals from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds. Some students feel intimidated, discouraged, or struggle to relate in the presence of too much geek or nerd décor. Creating a space or a classroom culture that makes an effort to include a variety of interests and skills may help make the classroom space more inviting for more students (Martinez & Stager, 2019).

Educators need to abandon biases towards certain crafts and tools associated with women’s work. “Try not to privilege the tools and materials in your space in ways that reinforce these traditional roles” (Martinez & Stager, 2019, p. 197). Educators need to encourage, praise, accommodate, and recognize all types of making and learning. STEAM maker curriculum, when effectively implemented, can benefit a large range of students. Maslyk (2016) points to how the hands-on nature of maker education develops fine and gross motor skills for younger students.

The qualities of maker education may also benefit students with physical limitations and English language learners (ELL) students by delivering the learning in a setting that is not solely text- based. Bridging the informal aspects of the maker movement with the formal structure of 73

STEAM education can be overwhelming, but with support from administrators and other

STEAM maker educators, solutions can be found to address the hurdles (Oliver, 2016a).

Summary

The successful implementation of STEAM maker spaces depends on many factors. As more STEAM maker spaces are being established in the formal K-12 school setting, it is apparent that no operational definition of the maker space exists because no two maker spaces are alike. Setting specific criteria for maker spaces would detract from the uniqueness of the communities, the schools, and the individuals who invent and innovate in those spaces. Because the maker mindset is collaborative, significant advice and insights for establishing school

STEAM maker spaces and curricula is not readily available. Educators find that dialogue with other educators experiencing implementation of maker pedagogy and technologies provide the most poignant and relevant information for the establishment of equitable, inclusive maker spaces. As educators learn more during their implementation of STEAM maker education, sharing discoveries with each other will help all teachers to stay updated on new advancements

(Kurti et al., 2014a; Martinez & Stager, 2019; Maslyk, 2016).

The sharing of advice and exchange of ideas between educators going through similar experiences is the most instrumental facet of professional development. Learning about the important factors for effective outfitting of the STEAM maker settings makes professional development invaluable for saving money, efforts, and time (Kurti et al., 2014a; Oliver, 2016b).

The importance of maker space professional development is based on more than teaching novice educators maker technology and pedagogy. Just as teachers need to recognize that their students come to the classroom setting with a range of interests and skills, administrators, and the teachers themselves need to acknowledge that educators come from a variety of backgrounds and with 74 different types of knowledge. Support for them needs to address the teacher’s learning style preferences, misconceptions, and aspects of adult learners with respect to Kolb’s experiential learning cycle. Selecting professional development that considers these factors can provide better understandings of maker pedagogies, technologies, activities, the maker mindset, and acquisition of maker skills (Kafai, 2018). Educators need to build their own maker community whenever they attend workshops, lectures, or maker events. Social media is another way for educators to connect with each other. Subscribing to Blogposts, newsletters, and joining social media groups for STEAM maker educators empowers each member by providing a “broad range of prior experiences and understandings” (Bevan, 2017, p. 88). The maker community can support educators in a culture where everyone can benefit and contribute to the collective.

Conclusion

This literature review established how John Dewey’s (1938) progressive education philosophy set the foundational principles for experiential learning that are now also associated with constructivism, constructionism, project-based learning, maker education, STEM education, and STEAM maker education. Dewey’s philosophy was a response to the need of the Industrial

Revolution for workers trained to labor in the factories. Dewey found that the mechanistic and regimented type of schooling was not educating students to develop strong creative or critical thinking skills. The factory style of schools did not prepare children to become young adults capable of addressing the problems of an increasing complex democracy (Dewey, 1938; Little &

Ellison, 2015; Martinez & Stager, 2013a). The literature also followed how Dewey’s philosophy was adopted in the 1920s by passionate school reformers. The schools adhering to Dewey’s pedagogy and curricula produced positive outcomes however after World War II, fears of rising

Communist sympathies in the United States caused reluctance for any connections to causes that 75 might be considered socialist. These sentiments caused declines in progressive schools and the mechanistic traditional school pedagogy and curricula reappeared with dismal results (Little &

Ellison, 2015; Socol et al., 2018).

In the last decade, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores for students in the United States have been outranked by the scores of students in Finland and China.

Because Finnish students scored highest in critical and creative thinking skills, American educators examined the education systems in Finland for guidance to make improvements in the

United States. Ravitch (2012) noted how the progressive educational policies of Finland have borrowed the main ideas that included “equality of educational opportunity, individualized instruction, and cooperative learning from America” based primarily on the philosophy of John

Dewey (as cited in Little & Ellison, 2015, p. 203).

The second section of this literature review focused on the history and evolvement of

STEM education to STEAM education, which eventually became maker education or more specifically, STEAM maker education. After the Soviet Union launched the satellite Sputnik in

1957, the rising fear of Communist domination of the world and in space pushed United States education policy makers to improve the American schools. The competitive drive to maintain global dominance fueled the Space Race to the Moon. Calls for school accountability resulted in the federal government having more oversight in the decisions of school systems at the state, regional and local levels. The allocation of federal funds for education was determined by students’ standardized test scores. The high stakes testing trend resulted in more teachers being coerced to “teach to the test” (Little & Ellison, 2015).

Due to continuing stagnant test scores and low high school graduation rates, public education policy makers called for more focus on science, technology, engineering, and 76 mathematics (STEM) in schools with additional funding and testing. However, as the need for more workers trained in the STEM contents grew due to growth in the private sector, the number of students opting for STEM careers did not increase. In order to attract more students, educators integrated art – visual and performing arts – producing the acronym STEAM. While STEAM education curriculum made the STEM courses less intimidating, the curriculum still lacked the framework of John Dewey’s philosophy of education to make the learning relevant for students

(Dougherty, 2016; Martinez & Stager, 2019). The success of the maker movement in the early

2000s was due to the grassroots support of do-it-yourself (DIY) individuals rebelling against consumer culture. The makers wanted hands-on projects with easily available materials to justify their own sustainability. Many educators saw the connections between the maker movement and the philosophy of Dewey for developing more equitable and inclusive education and sought ways to implement the maker philosophy along with the tenets and principles of Dewey’s progressive experiential (Martinez & Stager, 2019; Socol et al., 2018).

The third section of the literature review sought to provide guidance for STEAM maker educators preparing to set up maker spaces and preparing to design their STEAM maker curricula. Insights and advice from a variety of formal and informal teachers were considered.

Because there are few peer-reviewed studies of STEAM maker education in the formal K-12 school settings to date, educators continue to have many questions (Bevan, 2017). Gerstein

(2014) notes there is a congruence between Dewey’s writings and the maker mindset. She also suggests that looking to Dewey’s writings for guidance in implementing maker education in the formal K-12 school settings may help provide a framework for the activities. An important feature of maker education is that it is not based on, nor bound by, the parameters of space or the contents of that space. Thus, a definition or recipe for establishing a maker space does not exist 77

(Kurti, Kurti, & Fleming, 2014c). However, helpful information was gathered from STEAM maker educators who have experienced the set-up of maker spaces and the design of formal K-12 school maker curricula. Some have written books, magazine and journal articles and/or

Blogposts. Other educators have contributed videos, templates, instructions and websites to share with maker educators (Gerstein, 2016: Martinez & Stager, 2019). As more educators become aware of the flexibility allowed by the maker mindset, they may include more diverse activities to engage students who may be currently at-risk or disenfranchised. Finally, teacher leaders such as Buechley (2014) and Santo (2014) have called for equity in making.

Maker educators understand that each classroom situation is unique. Education experiences are not formulaic since experiential education includes successes, failures, hands-on activities, risks, and unpredictability (Gerstein, 2016). It would help administrators and teachers to understand how different, experienced maker educators accepted and tackled the challenges of learning how to approach new technologies and maker content while implementing STEAM maker spaces, curriculum, and pedagogy in their individual school settings. The narratives of several proficient and master maker educators in formal K-12 school settings should provide valuable insights.

78

Chapter 3: Research Design

The popularity of the maker movement has led to attempts to implement maker education in formal K-12 school settings (Martin, 2015; Martinez & Stager, 2013a, 2013b; Maslyk, 2016).

Maker education had foundations based on the philosophies of Dewey, Piaget, and Montessori and with particular focus on active hands-on learning, constructivism, constructionism, equity, and mindful design of curricula that draws from the students’ environments (Hsu et al., 2017;

Martinez & Stager, 2013a, 2019). Because of the overlaps between educative making and the progressive education philosophy of Dewey, educators ascribed potential for the implementation of maker education to increase student engagement in STEM learning and careers, especially students from communities that have been historically underrepresented in STEM fields (Bevan,

2017; Martinez & Stager, 2013a).

However, because the educators assigned to establish maker spaces and programs in formal K-12 school settings came with a wide range of foundational content, pedagogical, and maker knowledge and backgrounds, the effectiveness of the programs’ implementations has been inconsistent. “There is a divide between those with access to mentors, well-stocked maker spaces, classrooms, libraries, and museums, and those with less supportive and less accessible options” (Hsu et al., 2017). Because the phenomenon of educative making in formal school settings was a recent development, there were gaps in in the literature regarding insights and impressions of the teachers placed in charge of the maker spaces. In addition to setting up the maker labs, acquisition of maker content, skills, and pedagogy, these educators dealt with pressure from administrators and parents who worried about the legitimacy of new education programs (Martinez & Stager, 2019). Understanding how maker educators made sense of their experiences as they acquired the fundamental maker understandings would help other educators 79 who have been assigned to set up or improve particular school maker space programs in various formal K-12 school settings.

The purpose of this narrative study was to explore how experienced maker educators with a range of prior professional development and foundational STEM content knowledge, pedagogy, and skills found the motivation, set the goals, and obtained the training to implement effective transformative maker education programs in formal K-12 school settings. At this stage in the research, the transformation of educators into effective maker educators through their training and self-training was generally defined as the transformation of maker educators. The aim of this research was to examine the experiences of the participants and to compile a thematic analysis and discussion of the data in order to acquire insights into how the participants perceived and made sense of their assignments to establish maker spaces. The central research questions were the following:

• What influences and events in the life stories of teachers channeled them to become

maker educators?

• What were the obstacles and opportunities that maker educators encountered during their

transformation from novice to proficient levels of expertise?

This chapter began by briefly discussing the study topics and research questions. Then a foundational explanation of qualitative research was provided, followed by an explanation of the methodology for this study – narrative inquiry – to clarify why this specific methodology was used. Last, this chapter included descriptions of the participants, procedures for data collection, storage, and analyses, the strategies for maintaining trustworthiness and concluded with examining the limitations for this study.

80

Research Design

The current literature on maker education in formal K-12 settings is deficient due to the newness of the topic. Little is known about the experiences of educators prior to and during the educative maker implementation process, especially the difficulties they may confront during their process of becoming maker educators. Understanding the teachers’ stories and perspectives may help administrators and other educators establish their own transformative maker programs and maker spaces. A qualitative approach would be more effective in yielding robust data than a quantitative process because qualitative procedures gather descriptions of lived experiences and understandings directly from the research participants within the context of their situations

(Creswell, 2013; Ponterotto, 2005). From these descriptions, the significant events, processes, and makeup of people’ lives may be identified and possibly reveal how the meanings of these factors relate to their social world (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014).

A paradigm is a researcher’s suppositions about the social world; they set the framework for the systematic study of that world (Creswell, 2013; Ponterotto, 2005). Ponterotto (2005) also stated that the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm, with its hermeneutical approach, posits that meanings are hidden but may be realized and understood through deep reflection. In constructivism-interpretivism, interactive dialogues between researcher and participant and subsequent reflections on the interactions and dialogues result in the co-construction of findings.

Paradigms are associated with different beliefs or assumptions concerning the ontology, epistemology, axiology, rhetorical structure, and methodology of the research (Creswell, 2013;

Ponterotto, 2005).

Ontology considers the nature and characteristics of reality. Constructivist-interpretivists allow for multiple realities based on an individual’s perceptions and constructs, which result 81 from their context, situation, experience, perceptions, their environment, and the relationship between the individual with a researcher. Because there are multiple meanings yielding multiple interpretations of phenomena as constructed in the minds of the participants, it is not expected that a researcher would or could deduce a singular true reality from the data. Also, should different researchers look at the same interview transcripts, the resulting themes may not be identical to the first researcher, as there is no one correct understanding. The rigor of the study relies on robust description of the data (Creswell, 2013; Ponterotto, 2005).

Epistemology relates to the interaction between the participant and the researcher. In a qualitative study, the knowledge of the participant is transferred to the researcher through the subjective experiences and individual views of both the participant and the researcher. A researcher must get to know the participants in their contexts or fields in order maintain that resulting understandings are firsthand and authentic. For constructivist-interpretivists, the belief is that deeper insights may be reached through close personal interaction and dialogue between participant and researcher (Creswell, 2013; Ponterotto, 2005).

Axiology concerns the values of a researcher. In qualitative studies, a researcher does not bracket or separate themselves from their own values, experiences, and biases, but acknowledges and reports them in order to position themselves into the study. Both researcher and participants have interpretations of the phenomena studied (Creswell, 2013; Ponterotto, 2005).

Rhetorical structure is the language used by a researcher with the research report’s intended audience. In qualitative research, where a researcher is subjective and interactive with the participants, first-person rhetoric is used along with personal observations. A researcher shares their own experiences, biases, and values as well as their reflections on the impact that the research has made on their own lives (Ponterotto, 2005). 82

The methodology concerns the process and procedures of a study. The research method is a result of a researcher’s stance on ontology, epistemology, and axiology. Qualitative research is inductive, naturalistic, and emerging. A researcher follows the logic of the study from the ground up or from the interviews with the participants, not from a theory or their own point of view

(Creswell, 2013; Ponterotto, 2005).

These assumptions are not necessarily stated, but they are innate aspects of the research approach. The core tenets provide guidance to the researcher in designing the process of the research. The theoretical framework and these assumptions are woven together with the paradigms to inform the problem of the study, the research questions, the collection and analysis of the data and lastly the analysis (Creswell, 2013; Rubin & Rubin, 2012).

Research Tradition

At times the transitions to maker education go well for the teacher; at other times, the experiences can be awkward and stressful. Narrative inquiry has been selected as the methodological approach for this study because the telling of stories by the participants allows them to share their lived experiences in their own voices, stories that will in turn be retold by the researcher (Clandinin, 2006). Clandinin and Connelly (2000) developed their definition of narrative inquiry as a way of understanding experience based on two criteria of experience from

John Dewey’s (1938) philosophy of education. The first criterion was that people can only be understood as individuals because each person is an individual who is interacting with other individuals and with their own surroundings. The second criterion concerned continuity: each experience is a part of a continuum of experiences. Clandinin and Connelly described narrative inquiry as researcher and participants collaborating and interacting over a period of time in a specific place or places (Clandinin, 2006). 83

Narrative inquiry is conducted by gathering data on one or more individuals through interviews, reporting their experiences, and placing those experiences chronologically. Narrative research originated in literature, history, social sciences, and education, but different fields of study have varied approaches to using narratives (Creswell, 2012). To explain narrative inquiry,

Clandinin and Connelly (2000) used Dewey’s theory of experiential education to develop a three-dimensional metaphor based on interaction, continuity, and situation. The interaction dimension relates to the personal and social relationships and their meanings. The continuity dimension provides the timeline for organizing events or data as past, present, and future. The third dimension is concerned with the situation or place where the participant is located

(Clandinin, 2006). Depending on the different arrangement of dimensions, a wide range of various approaches for narrative inquiry have appeared. Creswell (2012) listed the most commonly used.

● In a biographical study, a person’s life experiences are recorded by the researcher.

● An autoethnography is written by a person who is the subject of a research study. This

record includes their life story, including experiences, reflections, and interpretations

of the meanings of their life events.

● A life history tells about a person’s entire life; a personal experience story tells about

a person’s experience in single or multiple episodic form.

● With an oral history, one or more individuals are interviewed concerning the cause

and effects of a specific event.

From the researcher’s personal observations and experiences, the immigrants who arrived first to the new land always had to find ways to sustain themselves and their families through the most essential learning cycles of trial and error. With little command of the language, these adult 84 learners were primarily self-taught. Later, after acclimating and assimilating, the new Americans shared their experiences with new immigrants through stories of advices, warnings, failures, and successes. The sharing of stories allowed the first immigrants a voice in sharing their hard- earned wisdom derived from life experiences and an opportunity to contribute useful information to ease the journey of future immigrants in the continuum. Narratives draw upon experience and continuity for capturing the storied experiences of maker educators as they transform into master teachers. This approach best reflected Dewey’s philosophy, provided an opportunity for the individuals to share their voices, and allowed the researcher to be a co-participant in the re- telling of the stories, and thus was the most suitable methodology for this study.

Participants

An important aspect of the research problem was to understand how educators with a range of foundational understandings of educative making made sense of their experiences as they learned how to implement maker programs in K-12 formal school settings. The focus was on how the initial maker educators who had to learn through autodidactic andragogical means or as self-taught adult learners acquired the understandings to become effective maker educators.

Qualitative researchers tend to study small samples of people. Narrative inquiries are noted for detailing the individual life experiences for one or more – usually a few – individuals (Creswell,

2013; Miles et al., 2014). Maximum variation sampling is an approach that sets advance criteria determining variations in the settings or participants. Heterogenous participants were selected with the intention of maximizing the range of responses and perspectives, which is beneficial in qualitative research (Creswell, 2013).

Therefore, through a nonstratified purposive sampling method, six participants were recruited. If it had been determined that responses were homogenous due to inadequate 85 sampling, additional participants would have been recruited though snowball sampling (Rocco &

Hatcher, 2011). The participants were all effective educators in K-12 formal school settings whose proficiencies were established by being instrumental in implementing maker education in their classroom setting or in establishing maker spaces within their formal school settings.

Historically, summative factors such as student test scores and ratings were used to evaluate the effectiveness of teachers. The criteria for establishing teaching proficiency also included formative factors such as the maker educators’ high level of content knowledge, skills, pedagogy, and their attitudes concerning education in regard to their own students (Berk, 2005;

Krumm, 2014). A working definition of proficiency in the case of maker educators was determined by their leadership as learners and innovators, their maker space management skills, their ability to engage students, their willingness to suggest or be a provider of resources, and their problem solving abilities (Gerstein, 2016b). All the teachers were employed as full-time educators in K-12 school settings as elementary, middle, high school, or cross-divisional teachers or were employed as such within two years prior to the interviews. To provide a greater understanding of the phenomenon, the schools were varied as private, public, or charter/magnet schools. The schools also varied in their access to funding for maker education labs as well as in the socioeconomic and ethnic diversities of their students.

Recruitment and Access

The participants who were recruited were effective maker educators teaching in K-12 formal school settings who were the researcher’s network. These were maker educators who the researcher had met from attending regional, state, and national science workshops and programs who were the initial educators for their school STEAM maker programs and thus, could

“purposefully inform an understanding of the research problem and central phenomenon of the 86 study” (Creswell, 2013, p. 156). The researcher remained in contact with these maker educators after the initial meeting by use of social networks where resources such as lesson plans, project- based learning ideas, and information about maker education were shared. The four to six educators were contacted with an email explaining the study and its purpose to share insights for the advancement of STEAM maker education. Because the participants were all 18 years of age or older and interviews were scheduled in the evenings or on weekends, no access to their schools or institutions were required. The researcher had prior relationships or connections to each of the selected participants. Some of these connections were closer, while others were more tenuous. No situations of power existed that may have influenced the participants’ responses, the researcher’s interpretations or consequent employment securities. The participants’ identities were protected. The researcher was mindful of being respectful of the participants as individuals and allowed them to “speak and carry the stories” during dialogues (Creswell, 2013). None of the participants nor the sites where they taught had or will have any vested interest in the outcome of this study.

Protection of Human Subjects

After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, participants were contacted via email for recruitment (see Appendix A). The researcher protected the anonymity of the informants by assigning an alias to the individuals and names of their sites. All participants in this study were volunteers who understood the research that would be conducted. All participants were informed that they were free to terminate the interviews at any time without explanation or subsequent consequences. The participants and the schools where they taught were given pseudonyms prior to the onset of the research. Participants were given and asked to sign an informed consent form

(see Appendix B). All documents related to the recruitment of participants which included the 87 informed consent forms, the invitation email, the interview protocol and the Institutional Review

Board (IRB) application form (attached) were submitted for IRB approval. The primary aim of the IRB was to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects. The committee carefully reviewed the proposed methodology to ensure the researcher’s ethical conduct as well as to protect the rights of the human participating as subjects of the research study. No interviews occurred prior to the completion of IRB approval.

Data Collection

The researcher met via Zoom with each participant in three sessions that lasted up to 60 minutes using a semi-structured interview protocol (see Appendix C). Online interviews via

Zoom were necessary because the participants were geographically scattered. With each participant’s permission, the Zoom interviews were recorded in order for the researcher to view and make additional field notes. Zoom processed the video recordings in MP4 format and the audio recordings in M4A format for downloading by the researcher. A semi-structured protocol allowed for more spontaneity and also provided flexibility for the emergence of unforeseen topics that may have been pertinent and needed further exploration. Throughout the three 60- minute sessions, the responsive interview style was used in order to establish trust between the researcher and participants. The focus of responsive interviewing was to find the context and richness of the participants’ stories while also understanding the complications and unpredictabilities of life. The flexibility of responsive interviewing accommodated the unpredictable and allowed for greater depth of exploration through its adaptations (Rubin &

Rubin, 2012). The recorded audio sessions were transcribed by Rev.com. The researcher took field notes during the interviews and immediately afterwards to summarize any thoughts or 88 perceptions that may not have been apparent from the transcripts (Connelly & Clandinin, 2006;

Rubin & Rubin, 2012).

The sequence of actions for the collection of data began with the first interview which included the informed consent, demographic information, the educator’s background (including what they did before becoming a maker educator), why their school adopted the maker education program, and who or what influenced them to want to become a maker educator. The first interviews were completed with all participants before proceeding on to the second interview.

The second interview explored the participants’ personal journeys beginning at the moment they began to undergo the necessary cycles of experiential learning in order to become an accomplished maker educator, and, more specifically, how they learned the content and the technical skills. This second interview also inquired into how the participants helped other novice maker educators acquire maker pedagogy, content, and skills, as well as their suggestions and advice. After second interviews were completed with all participants and prior to the third interview, all recorded interviews were transcribed. The transcripts were shared with the participants within 4-7 days after the second set of interviews for their review and feedback that was the focus of the third set of interviews. The third interview allowed the participant to provide feedback on the transcripts of the first two interviews for clarification and validation. At this session, participants asked any questions they may have had and noted any gaps in the transcripts or of information that may have been overlooked in previous interviews. After completion of the third interview with each participant and necessary corrections were made to the transcripts, the researcher coded the transcripts in the first cycle of coding. Using the recurring themes and notable quotes, the researcher restoried the participants’ experiences and responses in narrative form. The second cycle of coding searched for the most significant themes from the narratives 89 that were based on the first set of codes – essentially coding the codes – in order to find common concepts and insights from the narratives of the participants collectively.

Data Storage

All digitized data, forms, signature pages, transcripts, and emails have been stored on a password-protected cloud and will be deleted at a later date, leaving no evidence or traces leading to the actual participants in the study. Any physical data such as notes, journals, or printouts have been stored in a locked filing cabinet drawer with only one key that is in the researcher’s possession. All physical data will be shredded and destroyed at the same time the digitized data is erased.

Data Analysis

The basic steps of data analysis involved a cycle of collecting, sorting, and then simplifying the data into significant statements and assigning names or codes to those statements.

These codes were then combined into more general themes or categories that were arranged into tables, charts, or graphs in order to be compared and contrasted (Creswell, 2013; Rubin & Rubin,

2012; Saldaña, 2009). There was little distinction between the steps because of their ongoing connections during the process of analysis. Creswell (2013) described a data analysis spiral which was used to guide the analysis of the data for this study.

Organization, Reading, and Memoing

The researcher organized all data in computer files. The recorded interviews were transcribed into text files by a transcription service, checked manually for errors, and then summarized. This organizing at the beginning of the analysis process allowed for easier retrieval of data and identification of themes. The researcher read each transcript at least twice and also 90 made notes in the margins of the transcripts and field notes in order to understand the interviews holistically before dissection (Creswell, 2013; Rubin & Rubin, 2012).

Development of Codes and Themes

All first, second, and third interviews were completed with each participant before the onset of this phase. The transcript of each individual’s combined first and second interviews were sent to the respective participant for member checking. Additional notes and analytic memos were added on the hardcopies of the transcripts of the first two interviews to help find gaps or concerns that may have raised questions for discussion in the third interview (Saldaña,

2009). These notations helped maintain accuracy because the individual interviews took place over 4 to 6 weeks. This loop of the data analysis cycle – first-cycle coding – was when the researcher sorted, resorted, and summarized by describing the data of each of the individual participants, and then developed themes and classifications by comparing and contrasting the data in vivo in search of “excerpts that have relevant concepts, themes, events, examples, names, places, or dates” (Rubin & Rubin, 2012, p. 190). Actual words and phrases are used to maintain authenticity and to “honor the participant’s voice” (Saldaña, 2009, p. 48). The relevant excerpts will be noted by highlighting or bolding. The most frequently recurring themes from the coding guided the restorying of the participants’ interviews into narratives. Then second-cycle coding used focused coding to find the most significant and recurring themes from the narratives that could be developed into categories that reveal generalizations among the participants (Saldaña,

2009).

Interpretation of the Data

Using the concepts and themes that had the most emphasis from the interviews, along with notable quotes, the researcher described or “restoried” the experiences of the participants 91 into a detailed description – the narrative (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Although the narratives were structured chronologically in order to organize themes and events, the narratives also discussed the interactions of the researcher and participants during the interviews (Creswell, 2013). The three-dimensional inquiry space of Clandinin and Connelly (2000) guided the narrative to describe the experiences chronologically, from different points of view, and as situations with specific contexts. After writing the individual narratives with the data collected from the three interviews, the second-cycle coding used focused coding to draw out common themes from the collective. From the transcripts, codes and themes, the narratives, the field notes, analytic memos, and feedback from the third interview with the participants, the main ideas were pulled from the study and discussed.

Representation and Visualization of the Data

In the last loop of the data analysis spiral, the data gathered from the narratives was visually displayed in order to compare and contrast the narratives of the participants. For analytic purposes, matrices were used to display the data and codes in table or chart format for reflection and verification (Miles et al., 2014). Like-coded excerpts were sorted, compiled into one file, and then summarized. Variations in responses were also examined at this time (Rubin & Rubin,

2012).

Trustworthiness

Validating the findings – also known as trustworthiness – is the credibility factor that helps establish and maintain trust with the reader for the analysis of the researcher’s data

(Roberts, 2010). There are several techniques used to establish trustworthiness. The following validation strategies were used in this study:

92

Clarification of Researcher Bias and Familiarity

As mentioned previously, the researcher had relationships or connections to each of the selected participants. Because of the various degrees of familiarity between the researcher and the participants, several measures were taken to minimize risk to the study. In Chapter I, the researcher told her own history, experiences, biases, and orientations that may have influenced the interpretation and process for the study so that the audience could understand any existing assumptions that may influence inquiry (Creswell, 2013). The researcher was mindful of her own positionality and biases by maintaining a journal throughout the study that included field notes during interviews in order to not “drown out” or “co-opt” the voices of the participants

(Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 75).

Power Imbalances

The researcher and participants had no connections that may have created uncomfortable or threatening circumstances where one person may have wielded control over any aspects of the other person’s life socially or professionally. No situations of power existed that may have influenced the participants’ responses, the researcher’s interpretations or consequent employment securities (Creswell, 2013). In this study, none of the participants were in the same professional network as the researcher. They were connected only through social media for the purpose of sharing STEM and maker education resources.

Prolonged Engagement

The use of prolonged engagement helped to build trust between the researcher and participants, provided the researcher with insights to understand the culture of the participants, and checked for misinformation or inconsistencies from preexisting biases held by the researcher or participants. The researcher decided what information gathered was pertinent to the study 93

(Creswell, 2013). To ensure that trustworthiness and validity were maintained, the interviews occurred during a prolonged engagement through three interviews, with the third interview allowing for member checking through debriefing and addressing of gaps.

Member Checking or Debriefing

Member checking is simply taking the “data, analyses, interpretations, and conclusions back to the participants so that they can judge the accuracy and credibility of the account”

(Creswell, 2013, p. 252). This was considered to be an important technique for establishing trustworthiness and promoting the accuracy of the findings by guarding against the researcher’s biases and subjectivity. In this study, participants were provided with the transcript of the first and second interviews. The third interview session focused on the participant’s feedback on transcripts and also gave them time for any questions or concerns and note any errors or gaps that they may have perceived.

Robust, Thick Descriptions

The researcher used robust, thick descriptions about the participants, their experiences, and their settings as an indication of rigorous data collection and to help establish and maintain credibility (Creswell, 2013). In this study, the narratives included focused detailed descriptions based on the data gathered from the participants. The strong descriptions helped the audience envision consistent and accordant understandings of the situations and learning experiences of the maker educators in their individual K-12 school settings in order to provide reliable insights and findings to benefit the professional development of other maker educators.

Disqualifications

A possible hindrance to the study was the increasing departures of effective maker educators from the maker space classroom setting. Because of their leadership and efficacy in 94 acquisition of maker knowledge, many accomplished maker educators had been recruited as professional development facilitators by university and museum outreach programs or promoted to coach novice maker educators for school districts. In the event that a participant had been recruited out of the K-12 classroom setting during the data collection phase of this study and found that in their new position they were unable to participate due to other obligations, the researcher would have utilized purposive snowball sampling to recruit a new participant.

95

Chapter 4: Research Findings

Maker education is a developing trend that has gained momentum with K-12 administrators and policymakers in recent years. Because the projects and resulting artifacts created in maker spaces are tangible and visible to those who have a vested interest in the education of young people, administrators have used the measurable outcomes to justify grants and other funding for the equipment in these spaces. However, without adequate professional development and specialized training, teachers have often felt intimidated and overwhelmed by the specialized high-end equipment such as laser cutters and 3D printers that many administrators chose as initial purchases. The machines often remained unused until someone took the initiative to find a technical person to help teach the teacher(s); some teachers autodidactically figured out by reading manuals and watching YouTube videos to learn how to operate the machines so that they could teach their students.

In this chapter, the experiences of six maker educators were presented in order to learn how these successful teachers acquired their characteristics, skills, and content well enough to transfer their knowledge to their students. The six educators were from public and private schools across the U.S. and teach students of diverse racial, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds. In order to gather information that would be relevant and applicable to a wider audience, the purposively selected participants came from a variety of ages and backgrounds.

The data gathered are the results of interviews with the six participants via Zoom over a 4-week period. The interview questions were guided by the research questions:

• What influences and events in the life stories of teachers channeled them to become

maker educators? 96

• What were the obstacles and opportunities that maker educators encountered during their

transformation from novice to proficient levels of expertise?

The use of narrative inquiry as a methodology for the research was guided by the importance of experience and continuum of both Dewey’s philosophy of experiential learning and Kolb’s experiential learning theory. The restorying of each individual educator’s backgrounds, experiences, and perceptions as they acquired the qualities, expertise, and pedagogy to become proficient maker educators helped identify commonalities and differences.

The characteristics of the maker educators developed throughout their lives and were molded by their individual experiences with the world. During the Zoom meetings, the teachers shared their recollections and perceptions about their foundational years, significant life experiences, influences of family and mentors, personal and professional accomplishments and struggles, the types of professional development that contributed to their proficiency, and the feedback from peers as the educator became more confident and empowered. Collectively, these influences yielded themes that provide insights helpful to novice and emerging maker educators and administrators.

Participant Narratives

The six participants included four women and two men. One of the women was Black, one was Hispanic, and the other two were White. One of the men was Hispanic and the other was

White. All were educators in formal K-12 settings or had been teaching in the classroom setting within the last 2 years. All of the participants had established their classrooms to varying degrees as maker classrooms with emphasis on hands-on experiential learning. All six participants had presented at state, national, and international professional development workshops for STEM educators. The youngest participant was in her 30s; the oldest participant planned to retire from 97 the K-12 school setting at the end of December 2020. The six educators were diverse in their ages, backgrounds, locales, school size, and taught students from a range of socioeconomic circumstances. I used pseudonyms to protect their identities. Information that may have given clues to the identity of the educators was also removed. A few details were generalized as a precaution to prevent identification of the participants. The narratives of each participant have been presented in alphabetical order as listed in Table 1.

Table 1

Characteristics of Participants

Pseudonym Title Gender Age Students Type of school Locale Degrees taught attained Amanda General classroom F 40+ 20 Public, elementary, Indiana BS, MS teacher Title I

Danasa STEM educator F 40+ 590 Public, PreK–8, Title I New BS, MA, Jersey EdD in progress

Demetrio Science mastery M 40+ 130 Private, K-12, Oregon BS, MA specialist day/boarding

Emmett STEM & robotics M 50+ 750 Public, elementary, Indiana MS, MA educator Title I

Penelope Science STEM F 40+ 100 Public, elementary, Texas BS, MS specialist Title I

Raven Science Specialist F 55+ 132 Public, middle, Title I Texas BS, MS, EdD (ABD)

After the interviews of the six participants were completed and transcribed, the transcripts were reviewed for initial coding. A basic framework for the narratives was developed in general accordance with the interview protocol. Notable participant quotes were highlighted as they provided insights to the research questions. The transcripts were read again to detect impressions that may have been missed in previous readings. The noted passages were then used to construct the narratives of each participant. 98

Amanda

Amanda, a White woman in her early 40s, has been a classroom teacher in a Title I public elementary school in southwestern Indiana since 2007. Her duties included general education that involved teaching reading, math, social studies, and also social/emotional learning. Amanda was a looping teacher who accompanied her students from second to third grade. After third grade, the students would move on while Amanda would return to teach a new group of second graders. This looping eliminated the usual period of acclimation at the beginning of the school year because the students already knew the structure of the classroom and the personality of the teacher. One drawback that Amanda discovered, however, was that students initially struggled with learning the new higher expectations associated with being in a higher, pivotal grade level.

Because of her willingness to learn new things, Amanda was also the technology coordinator at her school.

Background. Amanda grew up as a latchkey kid in a single-parent household. Her mother worked full-time and attended business college in the evenings to earn an associate degree. Amanda was responsible for making sure her younger sister got off the school bus, getting their homework done, and starting supper before their exhausted mother arrived home.

During this time, the family lived in government housing. Their mother’s greatest regret was dropping out of college to get married and have children, so there was an expectation for the sisters to go to college and earn a degree. Their mother instilled in Amanda and her sister a sense of independence and of responsibility for their own education, possibly due to the influences of

Dr. Spock’s popular childrearing philosophy in the 70s. Amanda and her sister saw their father, an electrician, two weekends per month and also for a few holidays during the year. Although he did not think that women needed to go to college, Amanda credited her father with being a 99 positive influence on the two sisters through sharing his interests in stargazing and NASA. There were lots of science books around their father’s house, particularly about astronomy. Amanda was an early reader and developed an interest in history and genealogy. Her favorite subjects in school were reading and social studies while her sister was more interested in science and math.

The curriculum in the rural school where they grew up was and is still somewhat traditional with standardized reading and completion of workbook pages. Amanda was not exposed to any hands-on experiences in school until she dissected a frog in junior high school. The biology lab appealed to Amanda because it was different: it was not just sitting at a seat and doing paperwork.

As a student, Amanda was not a troublemaker because her mother’s rules stipulated that if she got into trouble at school, then she would “get the belt” at home. Thus, she was a well- behaved student. However, she would often catch herself daydreaming. Her mind wandered everywhere, and she had to redirect herself with an internal speech or mantra: “You’ve got to get this done. You’ve got to get this done. The teacher’s going to be mad. You’ve got to get this done.” Eventually, Amanda was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. She was prescribed

Adderall for mental hyperactivity and her grades rose from Bs to A pluses. But as an educator,

Amanda has chosen to not take the medicine because she “likes to have all her tabs open.” She felt that she was more connected to her students without the Adderall because she was “not zeroed in on only one thing at a time.” She explained that she had stopped taking her “medicine to be a better teacher.”

Education and experience. Amanda had a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education and a master’s degree in elementary education. While in college, she worked at several daycares and summer camps to gain experience and build up her resume. She began her teaching 100 career in early childhood classrooms, working at Head Start for a year before being hired by the county school corporation in August 2001. Amanda realized early on that her passion was working with children of poverty because of her own experiences growing up in poverty. But in order to get hired, she took the first job that was offered, which was teaching preschool. Amanda taught preschool for 6 years until an opening came up in 2007 for an elementary position at a

Title I school to which no other teachers would willingly transfer. She got the job on her first bid and taught there until the building was sold to a charter school. The faculty and students were relocated and absorbed into another Title I school, where she has taught to this day.

School environment. At the time of the interviews, the Title I elementary school in southwestern Indiana served 575 students from blue-collar families. Over 90% of the students qualified for free lunch. Often, the parents worked more than one job, which limited their willingness or ability to be inside the schools to show support for their children, so support from parents was inconsistent. When Amanda called parents, they were supportive; however, for most of the parents, their first priority was getting food on the table. Some parents previously had only negative interactions with schools, so they did not trust teachers or principals. Frequently, feelings of doubt and animosity were already looming at the initial contact. It took years to build relationships so the parents would finally begin to trust their child’s teachers and administrators.

Some parents did not speak English, so there were often language barriers. Once in a while, there would be a “super parent” or a parental figure such as a grandmother who was always there at school and present at every family night. Amanda described the range of parental involvement at her school as a “spectrum of support.” Support from her administrators was vital as well.

Teaching in a high-poverty school required intense focus on the students’ reading and math skills in order to increase the standardized test scores, provide accountability to policy makers, and 101 secure more funds for the school. Amanda spent much of her time finding ways to back up her curricula with documentation of the learning standards and defense of the hands-on activities associated with a project. Many students were so far behind and struggling with their education, that justification for spending more time on hands-on projects, while engaging, continued to be a

“hard sell” for administrators. There was great pressure to get the lagging students caught up with their peers.

Among the students in Amanda’s looping Grades 2–3 classroom were inclusion students who received special services through the district special education department, as well as two

English language learners and students with other types of special needs. She had 18 students in her classroom at the time of the interviews, but that number fluctuated because of the transitory nature of the students’ families. One student was from Guatemala. Because of rising sea levels in the Marshallese Islands and the 1983 Compact of Free Association between the U.S. and the

Marshall Islands, Amanda’s class had two students from the Marshallese Islands, and another student who was born in the U.S. to Marshallese parents. Many Marshallese fathers often remained on the islands for a while even after their families came to the U.S. in order to earn more money to support the family. The fathers would immigrate to the U.S. several years later after saving up more money. Meanwhile, the schools established connections with the acting heads of the families, usually mothers or grandmothers. Amanda has had to learn the dynamics of the Marshallese family structures and culture to help her students assimilate in their new schools and new homes.

In addition to over 30 contact hours with her students per week, Amanda attended morning meetings each day, 2 staff meetings per month, and assorted afterschool professional development. The daily morning meetings were a “heads-up” for the coming day; teachers 102 needed to be aware of students whose parent(s) had been incarcerated, who had utilities shut off, or who had been evicted. There were procedures in place for such issues. Amanda also spent a portion of her personal household budget to buy granola bars, juice packs, and school supplies for her students. There were weekly guided professional learning community (PLC) meetings on

Thursdays. Amanda also spent many hours searching on Google and YouTube for maker activities, projects, and resources. She even made it routine to sample two or three apps on her cellphone each month “just to see what was out there.” Amanda did not feel that she had to be an expert at every skill that she taught her students. For example, to learn how to make stop-motion videos, she found instructional videos on YouTube and practiced two or three times—enough times to know how to explain the process to her students. She shared that a lot of her instruction to students included, “Figure it out on your own.” Amanda’s greatest obstacle was the lack of time to find more experiential learning activities for her students. She noted that although her administrators were supportive, a large chunk of time was spent documenting in detail in order to justify to the principal her use of hands-on lessons instead of using worksheets.

Amanda felt a sense of pride in being able to share her expertise, but remained humble,

“When other teachers have questions about makerspacing or coding, they come to me now. I just remind them that I had to learn things the hard the way too. Here’s what I know…” She shared her advice with novice educators who wanted to acquire proficient maker skills, “It’s OK to start small. It’s OK to not know what you are doing. You just have to jump in and try.” Of all her strengths as an educator, Amanda felt that it was her sense of compassion that helped her most.

She emphasized, “If they don’t think you care, then they don’t want to learn from you.” The type of students that she has been teaching could innately sense whether a teacher cared. Amanda 103 noted that while there were teachers who were at school just to teach an academic content, there were also teachers like her, who were at school to “teach the whole child.”

Significant events and influences. During Amanda’s early childhood education program, she found that the stories of Reggio Emelia and student-guided learning resonated with her personal philosophy of education because of the emphasis on developing projects based on the children’s interests. She used the Reggio approach as a guide for her curriculum design as often as she could. Amanda was restricted by administrative protocols that required her to justify the class time spent and funding of materials for the project-based lessons. Amanda’s interest in maker education began when she was notified about a professional development conference at

Indiana University. There she learned about maker education, became excited about the pedagogy and curriculum, and shared the information with her principal, who was supportive despite the newness of the term and its integrated content. Amanda saw maker education as a wonderful opportunity for children to get more hand-on learning and develop critical thinking skills while problem solving.

Because of her additional duties as the technology coordinator for her building, Amanda was called the “technology guru” by colleagues. Amanda sensed that despite the teasing, the other teachers did appreciate her help with integrating new technology into their curricula.

Amanda was also called the “grant guru” of her school because she researched, applied for, and secured sizable funds for implementation of maker education. In 2018, she also received a fellowship—the Lilly Teacher Creativity Grant for $12,000—which allowed her to fulfill a lifelong dream to live in New York City for several weeks during the summer, attend Broadway plays, and participate in a playwriting workshop. Amanda used her new knowledge from the workshop to integrate creative dramatics and stagecraft into her students’ required curriculum, 104 providing a touch of whimsy in the lives of students who spent most of their school day being taught to the test. Although Amanda offered to guide other educators with grant proposals, very few teachers took the time to do the research and legwork.

Future goals. Other teachers would often ask Amanda why she stayed at her school while others transferred to schools with higher socioeconomic demographics, less challenging students and families, and a lot less physical and emotional stress. She would tell them that she stayed at the school because of the students. Amanda has never aspired to become an administrator. She stated firmly, “I want to be in the trenches every day. I don’t want to be in the front office. I want to be the soldier in the battle.” She understood that her stable presence at her school and dedication to her students has helped her earn the families’ loyalty and trust. Amanda intended to “die a teacher.” She intended to reapply for the fellowship in 6 years. Fellows may reapply only after 7 years and are allowed to receive the grant only twice in a lifetime.

Summary. Amanda’s story is that of a teacher who is dedicated to empowering her students through education. Her journey to becoming a maker educator did not become focused until she learned about the maker mindset at a conference. However, Amanda’s foundational qualities emerged as she was growing up as a latchkey kid, attending schools in lower income districts, and living in government housing. Being the responsible older sibling, Amanda had to fend for herself and her younger sister by learning survival skills experientially and autodidactically. Drawing on her own understandings of from growing up in disadvantaged circumstances, Amanda recognized the obstacles in the way of success for the students at her school. She understood the struggles of nontraditional families and of the disenfranchised. From her own struggles with attention deficit disorder, Amanda also realized how having exposure to experiential activities enhanced the learning for all of her students, particularly those with 105 processing and focusing issues. Amanda found ways to overcome the hurdles of teaching children of poverty. She earned parents’ trust and support through her ability to prove to the students’ families that she was sincere, nonjudgmental, and had the students’ best interest in mind. Early in her teaching career, Amanda recognized the effectiveness of synthesizing the

Reggio approach and STEAM maker activities to motivate and engage. She was willing to spend time justifying her experiential pedagogy and content to administrators. Not allowing the risks of rejection to hinder her resolve, Amanda devoted time to researching and applying for opportunities such as grants for her classroom and her professional development. Also, to increase her proficiency as a maker educator, she invested time to acquire the knowledge to become her building’s technology coordinator and attended workshops and webinars. Amanda continued to gain additional skills and set an example for her colleagues and her students of lifelong learning.

Danasa

Danasa, a White woman in her early 40s, has been a technology teacher and STEM educator at a public elementary school in New Jersey for the last 5 years. She taught

Kindergarten through eighth grades. Her lessons included basic beginning computer skills, digital literacy, different levels of online safety depending on the age group, integrated computer science with technology, coding, design thinking, and STEM maker space lessons. The other component of Danasa’s job was maintenance of the technology in the building. Examples of her responsibilities included ensuring that all copy machines were running and that there were adequate supplies such as toner. She also addressed issues with the students’ Chromebooks, maintained the Promethean boards and Smartboards, and generally took care of all electronic equipment or in her words, “anything that plugs in.” She received support for more complex 106 issues from her district and also enlisted help from a Level 2 group in the building for simpler issues.

Background. Danasa’s ancestors immigrated to the U.S. from Poland in the early 1900s.

Because of economic circumstances and historical events, despite the family’s emphasis on the value of education, no one was able to graduate from college until Danasa. She credited her parents for seeing her potential early on and for encouraging and supporting her to pursue her goals. Her father attended art school and eventually used his creative skills and ability to visualize in 3D to work as a freelance artist. Danasa’s mother and maternal relatives were all talented in the musical arts. Because of her family’s encouragement of her creative skills, Danasa felt support and freedom to explore and try new ideas, such as learning to play the clarinet. She received the right balance of pushing and support from her family to develop a fearlessness for exploring new interests. Danasa’s strength as an auditory learner also fostered her love of language arts, Spanish, history, reading, spelling, and coding.

As a student, Danasa noticed that while some students were able to learn and memorize what they saw on the board, it took her longer to study. Because she feared missing important ideas, she became an avid note taker and made use of how quickly she could type them up.

During the process of acquiring efficient learning skills, Danasa realized that she had to be adaptable and sought out ways to understand her teachers’ ways of teaching instead of waiting for the teacher to understand her way of learning.

Education and experience. Prior to her position as a technology teacher for the last 5 years, Danasa started out as a music teacher with a concentration in music performance of classical chamber music. She specialized in the clarinet and other woodwind instruments. Danasa taught high school band for 9 years. The year after she accepted the position, there were a lot of 107 layoffs in the visual and performing arts departments. Danasa realized that art and music departments were often the first to be targeted when school budgets were cut. So before deciding on a content area, she returned to school for a master’s degree. Recognizing how quickly technology advanced and that she had always felt “left behind” by computers and tech savvy people, Danasa decided that it was too early in her career to be intimidated by a tool that she would constantly need to use. So, she challenged herself by choosing to major in educational technology, taking a few classes over a long period of time. During the process, she was introduced to a whole new world of understanding the connections between technology, music, and STEAM education.

Five years ago, an emergency position was posted through her school district for a technology education teacher. No one wanted the tech job because of the intimidation factor.

Danasa applied for the job, was accepted, and immediately embarked on her transformation to teaching a different content mid-year. Danasa believed the new position was a great way to add excitement and security to her teaching career. She started by pushing a computer cart throughout the school to teach her students. Then as she gradually acquired more skills and technology as a curriculum evolved into a necessary discipline on a global level, Danasa gained more leverage and control of her position at her school. She was finally given her own space to set up as a STEAM maker lab and technology classroom. Danasa credited her flexibility and creativity that was nurtured by her dedication to the performing arts as her greatest assets in becoming a maker educator. As a student of music and then a music education major, Danasa learned the importance of practice to developing gross and fine motor skills for flawless performances. Danasa’s concentration in music placed specific attention on auditory skills and hand-eye coordination that could only be developed experientially. The understanding and 108 appreciation of the students’ need for experiential opportunities was transferred to her maker classroom when Danasa accepted the technology and maker lab position. The practice of music mindset became the iterations of design and redesign in the maker space. Her understanding of showmanship and how it could be used to engage students also contributed to her ascending status. Danasa believed switching from teaching music to technology was the best change she had ever made.

School environment. The Pre-K–8 elementary school was located in a building constructed in the late 1800s. Several additions and remodels occurred through the years with the last major addition made in 1999. The Title I urban school had just over 700 students, at least

50% of whom qualified for free lunch. There were three sections of each grade level. Danasa taught just under 600 students in K-8. The STEAM Lab was located in the former school library.

Danasa received administrative support for equipment, kits, professional development, and technical training. The school maker lab was transitioning to become a full-fledged maker space with the addition of new shelves, robotics kits, and other equipment. At the time of the interviews, the room still combined the dedicated maker space with a media center where students could research for other classes.

In order to keep up with maintenance, a second teacher was added to teach technology to the remaining 100 students in the school. Located on a peninsula in the Gateway Region of New

Jersey, the school district included many working-class families with parents in manufacturing and maritime jobs. Involvement from parents for the school and the programs varied. Some parents were unfailingly dedicated to providing support for their child’s participation in school as much as possible. However, a growing number of parents struggled with providing food and shelter, so educational support was often sidetracked or absent. These students, by necessity, had 109 a great amount of responsibility to independently make sure they completed their schoolwork and household duties. Danasa observed instances where the parents may not have been attentive until grades were due, and then became panicked. These parents apparently cared, but were unable for a myriad of reasons, to be as involved as they needed to be. Danasa understood how some parents struggled with helping their child with homework from STEAM content areas because they had difficulties with these subjects themselves while they were in school. These parents possibly struggled with personal fears of change since they did not grow up having classes in topics such as computer science, coding, or robotics. It may have been difficult for the parents to admit that they felt helpless while their child was trying to catch up with peers academically.

Initially, while transitioning from a being a music teacher to a teacher of technology,

Danasa was not certain how the two subject areas could be integrated with respect to her identity.

Then, in the midst of her transition to teaching technology, Danasa discovered how her content knowledge and skills could be merged into a new discipline that was an amalgamation of all her passions. That new discipline was maker education. Danasa continued to learn more about maker education through workshops, webinars, and other professional development opportunities. In the beginning of her transition to maker educator, she was piecing together the knowledge and understandings by herself through trial and error. Danasa remembered how “part of the initial struggle was figuring out where she was supposed to be and what her next moves would be” in regard to the curriculum. Gradually, more intensive programs and resources appeared. Danasa took two graduate classes per semester during the school year, added a third class during summers, and attended workshops in Arduino on Saturdays. Danasa also built up a global network of like-minded educators on social media. As a routine, at the end of each evening, 110

Danasa scrolled through all the new ideas and techniques being shared until she fell asleep. She noted that one of her greatest challenges is finding enough time to learn new skills and content.

She often questioned herself on whether she was getting enough training and doing the best for her students; she called these doubts the imposter syndrome. She advised novice teachers to erase these doubts and refuel their passions by going out and learning more, to find like-minded educators to talk to, and figure out their own place in the maker education movement.

Danasa’s colleagues were supportive of her presence in the maker space. She apologized often for the noise level coming from her classroom, even though the other teachers assured her that they did not mind the cacophony. The supplies, resource materials, tools, and space were offered to other teachers in the building on a sign-up basis with a schedule of the times the classroom was free. Items could be checked out to borrow like a library book. But Danasa noted that no one ever took advantage of the opportunities. She thought perhaps they had not yet found ways to integrate maker driven activities with their own content. The only pushback came from other district teachers who visited Danasa’s school for professional development offered by her director to promote maker spaces. Since her school was the first in the district to be outfitted with a freshly painted STEAM maker lab with new furniture, a few naysayers questioned why Danasa was the first teacher chosen to set up the maker education program. However, as the rest of the schools in her district established their maker classrooms, Danasa’s assistance with advice and training built new alliances.

Danasa shared how she has turned her own learning into teachable content and skills for her students. She chose the skill first and then designed a lesson with empathy in order to make the topic relatable to the students. Danasa noted, “The empathy is, I think, the golden glue of the entire lesson. We’ve got so many things going on. You could teach how to solder, how to use 111 conductive thread, and all the new things, but it’s in a vacuum if they don’t understand why we’re using it.” She firmly believed that the students’ connections and collaborations were important to sustaining their interest. “Everything worked together because there was always a reason. Nothing happens on its own in a bubble,” Danasa added. While the students were working on projects together, she often listened to her students talk. Danasa zeroed in on what seemed like silly classroom buzz but were actually conversations rich in information about her students’ interests. She revealed that she used these ideas to choreograph ways to make her classroom lessons more engaging. Danasa suggested that educators keep an eye to the future for their students and for themselves. Because things change so quickly, educators need to consider the multiple skills that will make their students more employable. Danasa highlighted that current trends in manufacturing indicate that employers don’t want specialists anymore; they want generalist engineers with multiple skills. She emphasized that teachers themselves need to keep learning to stay abreast of new content, “If you’re standing still, you’re behind already.”

Significant events and influences. Art and music were Danasa’s favorite subjects in school. She credited the engagement partially to the personality and pedagogy of the teacher, but also felt that the experiential aspects of the content and the opportunity to realize her personal growth helped build an affinity for these subjects. In seventh and eighth grades, Danasa had a teacher for reading and spelling who was noted for thinking outside-of-the-box. The class always worked in teams to compete for different points to win Blow Pops that he tossed to the high- scoring students. The teacher had created a game called “Listen and Take Notes.” In the game, the teacher would read a story aloud while the teams of students were feverishly taking notes.

They learned how to focus, listen, code, draw, diagram, and come up with various ways to take notes. Then there would be a trivia competition with questions over what had just been read. The 112 students learned to collaborate and delegate. Students would focus intensely on one self-assigned portion of the story to do their part to contribute. Danasa pointed out that the students were learning important basic skills in an engaging way. While these skills are not always formally aligned to the standards, they were still valuable skills.

Another influential teacher was the high school band director who emphasized the importance of teamwork in music class with the analogy of building a car. For example, he would tell the clarinet section that they were making the tires. The low brass section was assigned to the muffler and another section was in charge of the radio. Coming together at rehearsal was when the entire band would “build the car.” There would be times when the car could run without the radio. Even though the radio was not needed at a certain time, it was still a part of the car. The band director used the car analogy to show how important it was for everyone to do their part to make the music come together. Danasa realized that there was so much 21 st century learning occurring at the same time. She wanted to pass this understanding on to other students.

Danasa’s philosophy of education was influenced by Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. She recognized that although some people felt that his theory was more of a myth than a logical theory, she has been fascinated with his ideas for education in the future.

Danasa felt that taking the best strategies from various educational philosophies from forward thinkers such as Howard Gardner, Daniel Pink, and Sir Kenneth Robinson, and then spiraling into brand new tactics might be a possible direction for educators to take. Danasa suggested,

“There’s such diversity that I think we need to know a little bit about everything and then figure out the kid and then figure out what’s going to unlock that student.” She did not feel that any 113 singular approach was valid for everyone, particularly for the range of learners currently in schools.

Danasa had a great mentor in her director who was a graduate of the Honeywell

Educators Space Academy (HESA) in Huntsville, Alabama. She encouraged Danasa to seek out

NASA related professional development. Four years ago, Danasa was accepted to HESA. It was a professional development opportunity that validated her philosophy of education. At the week- long camp, she learned experientially with hundreds of other educators from 35 nations and 45 states. Danasa maintained contact with like-minded educators that she met there through social media. The friendships have yielded an ongoing sharing of ideas and support for each other’s learning and teaching journeys. A year ago, Danasa worked with one of her HESA cohort to present at the Space Exploration Educators Conference (SEEC) at the Johnson Space Center in

Houston. Their topic covered how educators on a budget can set up a school maker space.

Danasa believed that her supervisor’s experiential educational opportunities at HESA and background in STEAM training placed them both in similar headspaces. This mutual understanding was advantageous in getting the green light for Danasa’s ideas and requests to fund the maker classroom projects.

Future goals. Danasa has continued to attend works shops and other professional development to increase her skills as a maker educator that also included learning more about

Arduino She was on the curriculum writing team to help emphasize STEM content with the goal of implementing STEAM and maker education throughout the district. Danasa completed half of her coursework for her doctoral degree – an EdD in Educational Technology Leadership. She would consider a leadership role in the school or district, but her long-term goals also included 114 being a teacher educator in higher education. In addition to Danasa’s coursework for her doctoral degree, she also attended one or two workshops per month.

Summary . Danasa’s story tells about an educator who was adaptable enough to explore a seemingly unrelated content area in order to keep teaching. She struggled with her own learning while in school and took the initiative to find more efficient ways to learn and to retain that learning by becoming a strong note-taker and multitasker. She also specifically noted how important it was for her students to find relevance in their learning. Danasa emphasized the value of collateral learning such as resilience and knowing how to collaborate and communicate. These are examples of qualities and skills acquired during experiential activities that are never measured on standardized tests. Danasa drew from her understandings of music performance, which included accepting difficult challenges, repeating iterations of techniques in order to develop automaticity, and taking risks. Danasa applied these aspects of the performing arts curriculum to her maker classroom in a manner that elevated her skills from a novice to a proficient maker educator. As a musician, she had to practice various pieces on different instruments in order to teach. Danasa realized she had to do the same with the tools in a maker space. By watching YouTube videos, collaborating with a global network of maker educators from HESA and SEEC, and furthering her education, Danasa honed her skills to become more proficient. Her rise to new challenges stood out as a way to leverage herself from a teacher whose job security was low to an esteemed and valued colleague who was able to contribute to the collective in the building. She transformed herself by effectively synthesizing the disparate aspects from her range of teaching experiences. By taking charge of her own transformation initially from a music teacher to a maker educator, then from a novice to a proficient maker 115 educator, Danasa set a significant example that showed the benefits of determination, investing of time, and lifelong learning for her students and co-workers.

Demetrio

Demetrio, a Hispanic man in his early 40s, had taught at a private K–12 day and boarding school in western Oregon for the last 4 years. Two years ago, he became the science mastery specialist and was also placed in charge of the school maker lab. He taught approximately 130 students in a dedicated maker space separate from the science labs, classrooms, and study areas.

The school, established in 1976, had boarding students from around the world and day students who commuted from the vicinity. The philosophy of the school posited that learning is a constant while time is a variable as opposed to traditional schools where learning is a variable and time is a constant. The school’s curriculum has been mastery-based; the assessments were based on the acquisition of specific skills and content. As the science mastery specialist, Demetrio helped the students find projects that would allow them to gain skills and the understanding of content during the process of completing a science project.

Background. Demetrio grew up in southern Colorado in a small town close to a major interstate highway that stretched from Mexico to Canada. He described his neighborhood where he grew up as “interesting” because once marijuana was legalized in Colorado, other more destructive drugs quickly became prevalent. Over the last 10-15 years, the neighborhoods in his part of the community had been devastated. Seeing the decline of his hometown gave Demetrio motivation to rise above the circumstances of that environment.

Demetrio’s father attended college for one year before he was drafted into the Vietnam

War. He became a grocery clerk after his return to the U.S. Demetrio’s mother completed college coursework for certification as a special education teacher. Demetrio lived mostly with his father 116 after his parents separated. When he was at his father’s house, Demetrio had to do chores and help with the running of the household. He was also responsible with getting his own schoolwork done. Demetrio recalls that his father was able to help with homework only until Demetrio reached the eighth grade. He mentioned a hands-on summer science camp that influenced him to pursue a career in STEM. Math Engineering Science Achievement (MESA) was where he was given a robotics kit to build. Demetrio was also influenced by the Upward Bound summer program where the best science teachers in the area were hired to present math classes without the pressure of grades. In Upward Bound, Demetrio met two wonderful math teachers. One eventually became his math teacher in 10 th grade when he finally passed algebra after he had failed in eighth and ninth grades.

Demetrio eventually realized that he had great visual and critical thinking skills, but he did not have strong memorization skills yet at that point in time. In chemistry class, Demetrio also observed how his peers whose parents were engineers and scientists had the advantage of their own “on-call tutors” at home. Demetrio realized he had to learn how to study on his own.

He took the advice of his older brother who suggested that he take classes in Study Technology, a study skills course that taught Demetrio how to learn. Immediately, Demetrio’s grades began to improve. Realizing his capabilities once he learned how to he learned best, Demetrio saw education as a pathway to a better life.

Education and experience. In college, Demetrio earned his BA in Chemistry with an emphasis in Secondary Education. He began teaching in 2007 as a STEM teacher in a San Luis

Valley, Colorado public school. Demetrio’s favorite class to teach was scientific research where he helped students identify their passions and then find or develop projects that were related to their interests. His assessments were based on the students’ growth with both skills and content 117 while doing independent scientific research. The scientific research class was successful in helping the school become one of the top-performing schools in Colorado. Although there were students winning at international science fairs, the model and culture of the school remained constrained. It was at this public school where Demetrio and a colleague David had conversations about the direction of education nationwide and what was necessary for their visions future of education in the future. Demetrio found support and validation through exchanging ideas and collaborating with like-minded educators. To supplement his teaching income, Demetrio worked for a construction company during summers building residential homes.

In 2016, Demetrio and his wife visited Oregon while on vacation, heard about the boarding school, and arranged for a visit. The visit led to job interviews where they were both hired. Before they both left their positions in Colorado, Demetrio and David discussed how for learning to be engaging, what the student was studying or working on needed to have a purpose.

Demetrio felt that much hinged on whether the learner had a purpose that made the topic relatable. If there was a relatable purpose, then suddenly the learning became relevant and rapid.

He added, “You have a lot of questions because you have a purpose there, and it changes everything in education.” Demetrio acknowledged that his own personal struggles have helped him a lot in becoming an effective educator. Because he was initially a slow learner and late bloomer, he understood that while the difficulties his students had were authentic, it was not impossible to remove the walls that his students were hitting. Demetrio felt that having those insights were a valuable advantage for a teacher. He also placed emphasis on directing the tone of the classroom towards fun. He understood how the learners’ minds are associative. If a student was having a bad time in a science class, he would likely associate science with a bad time. 118

Thus, if a teacher could keep the student focused in a fun manner, more could be accomplished than by threatening the students, “You’d better get this done: the world’s going to fall apart if you don’t.” Demetrio felt that if teachers could relax a bit and have fun with the struggling student, more learning and skills would be gained beyond just getting the student to do his work.

School environment. When he was interviewed, Demetrio was teaching at a boarding and day school located on 720 lushly wooded acres near the coast of Oregon. The school was established in 1976 by a team of “rogue teachers” who believed that education should be different in that students should be able to apply the content knowledge and skills they acquired by their time of graduation. The school had an enrollment of almost 250 in students pre- kindergarten through 12 th grade. The population of students included 16% students of color, 80% international students, and 75% were boarding students. The private school boarded students from the fifth to the 12 th grades. The tuition for day students was $36,000 and $57,000 per year for domestic boarding students. International boarding students paid $64,000 per year to attend.

Financial aid was also available in order for the school to maintain a diverse and inclusive student population.

While other schools around the world were in quarantine due to the COVID-19 virus,

Demetrio’s school was still in operation. Over half of the 170 boarding students were not able to return to their home countries due to travel bans. During the pandemic quarantine of Spring

2020, the teachers at the school taught the boarding students in person and also taught the nonboarding students virtually. The boarding students and teachers had meals served cafeteria style by the kitchen staff. The school still had custodians for maintenance and major cleaning.

The culture of the school placed emphasis on the students cleaning up after themselves in the classrooms. Older students mentored the younger students. Alumni often returned share their 119 experiences and resources. In the mornings, students worked on the foundational coursework.

The afternoons were devoted to working on projects. Instead of grade levels, the school was based on forms. High school was comprised of forms six, seven and eight. Because the school curriculum had always been project-based with emphasis on applications, the maker philosophy had consistently been a part of the mindset of the school for the last 40 years. By the time a student completed a form, they were expected to have completed several projects that were testaments to their ability to apply the content and skills to real-life problems. Demetrio did not have any preps or planning period since the teachers did not have traditional hours. He believed that in his former public-school position, he was in a position of authority, talking down to his students, and spoon-feeding them the content.

In his position as a science mastery specialist, Demetrio felt that he and his students were learning new knowledge on parity at the same time. It was also considered important for students to be able to apply their new knowledge. Demetrio highlighted the word glib. He used it to describe a person who might be very fluid in speaking or describing something yet was unable to apply what they knew to real-life situations. He described a glib person as a “person who can talk it, but they really don’t understand how to use it.” Demetrio believed that the main purpose of education is to be able to apply one’s knowledge to real-life situations to solve problems. As for the support from his colleagues as he set higher goals for himself and became more accomplished, Demetrio recalled that at his previous school, he would occasionally hear comments such as, “Oh man, you’re setting the bar really high for the rest of us. We’re all in trouble.” Demetrio did not sense such remarks as jealousy or resentment, but more as casual side resulting from his colleagues’ insecurities and lack of confidence to take risks. He also shared 120 that his colleagues’ reactions may have reflected their reluctance to adapt to change. Now, the culture was different; a feeling of community was prevalent for all.

Demetrio’s advice for novice educators was to consider nontraditional means of acquiring new skills. He attributed his own background and his experiences through building houses during summers for helping him to acquire an entire skillset that enhanced his confidence in the maker space. Demetrio noted that amazing informal educators on YouTube videos “who don’t even consider themselves educators” provide great opensource ideas for projects and methods for learning new skills. He watched the videos and then practiced two to three times to familiarize himself with new techniques. Demetrio explained, “Anytime you get competent at something, you have a transferable skill.” Demetrio advised novice maker educators to keep things initially simple: “Start with cardboard and hot glue guns and get busy to build up different skill sets. Just by doing things, a person can learn. If you just keep at it, you’ll make breakthroughs.” Demetrio also recommended resources such as Popular Mechanics and Popular

Science magazines as useful for finding references for maker teachers and students.

Because his school’s culture did not emphasize the teacher needing to be in control of all the learning, Demetrio felt comfortable learning from his students when they acquired new skills or insights. He no longer felt like he had to be the authority who was “way ahead of the students.” Often, at the boarding school, Demetrio felt that the students were able to acquire new skills more quickly than he. But he added that the nice part was not having the fear of students knowing more than the teachers. Teachers and students were all learners. The growth was multidirectional.

Significant events and influences. Demetrio credited most of his academic success to his older brother recommending a class called “study technology.” Demetrio said that this was 121 where he learned how to learn. Understanding how he learned best, Demetrio became a faster learner with a deeper level of understanding and was able to excel in difficult courses. In 2008,

Demetrio was selected to be a Space Foundation teacher liaison and a teacher leader member of the Space Exploration Educators Conference Crew. At the Colorado public school, Demetrio collaborated with his colleague David to develop a set of aerospace lessons for gifted students.

Demetrio designed a website to provide opensource resources and guides for anyone desiring to learn about STEM careers, avionics, and aerospace content. In 2018, Demetrio won a national K-

12 educator award sponsored by Northrup Grumman for outstanding creativity and innovation in his application of technology in the classroom.

Future goals. Demetrio has continued to participate and present at many STEM educator workshops and conferences as well as facilitate opportunities for his students to engage in space education. Last year, he presented at the Space Exploration Educators Conference to other educators in a STEM maker workshop on the use of simple materials to design and make space apparel including helmets. Demetrio’s immediate goal was to “beef up” the current STEM program at his school with robotics, electronics, and Arduinos. Eventually, Demetrio intended to earn a terminal degree such as an EdD. He had also been traveling to learn more about other cultures and educational systems in Europe.

Summary. Demetrio’s story presents an educator who was able to overcome the hardships of his formative years to become an internationally recognized leader in maker education. As a latchkey child living mostly with his single father, Demetrio had to assume many responsibilities at an early age. He felt inadequacies as a student during high school because he struggled with difficult content since he did not have a strong memory. Demetrio ascribed his ability to navigate his journey to becoming a proficient maker educator to a study skills class that 122 he took in high school. Because of the understanding of how he learned best and his greater level of confidence as he progressed, Demetrio was able to confront his hurdles. He was able to acquire and retain knowledge that had seemed impossible at one time for him to grasp. Demetrio learned from conquering his own learning hurdles that content and skills could be accessed in many ways. He was able to suggest effective alternative ways to help his own students overcome their weaknesses. He also attributed much of his expertise and resilience as a maker educator to the skillsets he acquired while working in summers as a builder. As he evolved to become a more proficient maker educator, Demetrio found that he grew in confidence and lost his inhibitions to learning new skills and taking risks. In the climate of his new school, where there were fewer constraints such as grading and standardized lesson plans, Demetrio believed he was capable of learning anything if allowed enough time. For Demetrio, learning became a constant on his journey to becoming a maker educator. Demetrio relied on his self-determination and hard work to become a successful adult. He exemplified these qualities for his colleagues and students.

Demetrio wondered, “If we can routinely release the power of the atom, why can’t we routinely release the power of students?” From his successes as a teacher, Demetrio firmly believed that the majority of people still have a lot of untapped potential.

Emmett

For over 30 years, Emmett—a White man in his mid-50s—had been teaching in urban

Indiana public schools. At the time of his interviews, he was the robotics and design teacher at an elementary STEM-focused magnet school in Indianapolis. Emmett had been in this position for 5 years. He taught the basic engineering design process, computer science, and robotics to about

750 students from Grades 1 through 6. Emmett had received numerous awards during his 123 teaching career. He had been the teacher of the year for his district, received the Lilly Teacher

Creativity Fellowship twice, and went through the process to become a LEGO Master Educator.

Background . Emmett was born in a major Midwest city and lived there for 5 years until his family moved to San Francisco, where they lived for another 5 years. Because of his father’s career, the family moved every 2 years between the West Coast and Midwest. They finally settled in Los Angeles for the rest of Emmett’s childhood. Emmett’s family included two younger brothers. Both parents had postsecondary degrees. Emmett’s mother was a stay-at-home mom who graduated from a private university with a degree in psychology. When Emmett was in high school, his mother took a job in early childhood education. She taught 2-year-olds at the local daycare that Emmett’s brothers had attended. Emmett’s mother was the daughter of an influential couple in their hometown. His grandfather was a prominent businessman who owned a cigar and candy manufacturing company. His maternal grandmother was a well-known painter.

Emmett’s father had a degree in microbiology with intentions of attending medical school but opted for an MBA in finance from a flagship research university. His father’s fascination with airplanes led to his dream job as the finance coordinator overseeing the budget for the on- board software of the B-2 bomber at Northrup Grumman. Emmett’s father also worked at Bank of America in their aircraft loan division. When the division was consolidated, his father was offered several positions in international finance, but Emmett’s mother said no to all of the options and was in favor of returning home. So, at age 55, his father retired from his corporate career and opened his own T-shirt printing shop back in his mother’s hometown.

In fourth grade, Emmett often babysat for a neighbor who was a kindergartener. Emmett would teach whatever he had learned in school that day to the child. He learned how to simplify content so that the younger boy could understand. It was a challenge that Emmett enjoyed; he 124 knew at an early age that he wanted to become a teacher. Beginning at age 13, Emmett worked at his father’s store and learned a few skills: how to operate a large T-shirt press, talk to customers, handle a sale, and also developed a strong work ethic. The skills Emmett acquired while working at his father’s business would be helpful later when Emmett became an educator. When Emmett turned 18, he was hired as an assistant at the daycare center where his mother taught; this is where Emmett discovered that he had a gift for working with young children. Inspired and shaped by his maternal grandmother’s talent in art, Emmett always drew “as far back as he could remember.” His favorite subjects in school were science and art. Science always intrigued

Emmett partly because of the questions and answers, but mostly because science included hands- on activities. When he was in fourth grade, he signed up for an afterschool club called “Scalpels and Stethoscopes” that allowed elementary students to dissect a frog and a shark. In middle school, Emmett took industrial arts classes as well as arts and crafts class. In high school,

Emmett took the typical art classes and AP studio art.

Education and experience . When Emmett was an elementary education major at a private liberal arts university, the art professors tried to convince him to change his major to art.

Emmett remained focused on becoming a teacher and received his bachelor’s from there in the mid-90s. He received his master’s degree in educational administration as a part of the

Experiential Program for Preparing School Principals (EPPSP). At the end of the 2-year program, Emmett asked his mentor for a recommendation. She asked him what he really wanted to do. Emmet responded, “I want to make a difference in children’s lives.” His mentor replied with honest advice, “Well then, you don’t want to be an administrator because all you’ll do is deal with discipline and parents.” Emmett took note of her warning and considered himself fortunate that his mentor cared enough to make him consider his true passion in education. 125

Emmett has taught in several positions at the elementary level. He started teaching as a first-grade teacher and became a technology specialist when a principal noticed Emmett was able to set up a computer. After his first school was closed due to consolidations, Emmett taught third grade at his current school until he became a magnet integration specialist. Then he accepted the robotics and maker educator position when another teacher resigned. In his maker space,

Emmett’s students have been encouraged daily to take risks and to learn from their failures. He explained to his students, “The only way to get a good grade in my class is to fail.” As they looked at him quizzically, he added:

You do it right the first time, it doesn’t matter. I’m looking for someone who’s going to

do it wrong, go back and try something new, and then go back again to try something

newer. Don’t get upset if you can’t do it right the first time. You’re not supposed to.

Emmett’s students have learned that in his classroom, failure is not only an option, it is a good option.

School environment . Emmett had been teaching at a Title I urban school that served between 700 to 750 students. The one floor cinder block building was constructed in 1959. There have been numerous additions and renovations. In 1986, the school became a math/science magnet school. Since that time, the school has always maintained a focus on math and science.

Adding a maker/robotics lab was a logical step for the administrators. The most recent renovation in 2018 relocated Emmett’s classroom from the back of the school across from the gym to a central spot with floor to ceiling glass windows for all visitors walk by can observe what takes place in Emmett’s showpiece classroom. The maker space and robotics labs were as state-of-the-art as funds could provide. Emmett was told at one point that his classroom was equipped with $70,000 worth of Lego bricks purchased through educational grants. The 126 administrators and colleagues were all strongly in favor of the maker lab and appreciated

Emmett’s hard work and efforts. They felt that since Emmett was able to engage the students with hands-on projects and robotics, they were able to concentrate more on teaching the reading and math. Emmett noted that other educators supported him without any resentment for the awards and attention he received, because they could always see him working through the windows of his classroom. Emmett pointed out that he was always in the maker space before the other teachers arrived in the morning and he was also there in the late afternoons when they left.

He had earned his accolades by investing his time and hard work.

When the school was an exclusive STEM magnet school, the parents had to apply for their children to attend. The students took assessment tests and were interviewed in a competitive process for acceptance into the school. Then 10 years ago, it was decided to convert all sites in the urban district into STEM magnet schools. The population of the school was redistributed throughout the district, which changed the demographics of the student body at Emmett’s school.

Approximately 80% of the students qualified for free lunch. At least 70% of the students were

Black, about 20% were Hispanic, and less than 10% were White. There was one child of Chinese descent. While some parents were intensely focused on their child’s education, there are an equal number of parents who were more concerned with putting food on the table. Since the demographics of his school shifted, Emmett noticed strains in his classroom. When it had been a full-fledged magnet school, the students in his classroom rarely changed. Now there was a constant in-and-out. His classroom might have gotten 6 new students on a day, then 3 left a few days later, and then 2 more enrolled a few days later. The beginning of a month was a difficult time because some families had been evicted so the students were moving to a new apartment.

The loss of continuity diminished the learning in his maker classroom. 127

As a maker educator and robotics coach, Emmett found several challenges for himself.

One challenge was having enough time to explore the new robot kits and acquiring new skills well enough to teach his students. His second challenge was finding the necessary technical support to allow him to run the maker lab properly. For example, there were rules in place that prevented Emmett from loading software onto the computers. All software had to be installed by the building technology coordinator. In his maker lab, the laser cutter remained idle because the technology coordinator had installed the wrong software. Emmett felt that what wore him down the most was the lack of control and the lack of auxiliary support.

Emmett’s own transformation to becoming a proficient maker educator was a lifelong journey that had begun in his childhood. Emmett acquired the skills to operate his maker classroom from all of his previous experiences as a babysitter, tutor, daycare provider, artist, educator, and his position as technical coordinator. He even drew from his experiences working for his father in the t-shirt shop. Most of his skills were acquired independently through his constructivist mindset through many iterations - try, fail, try, fail, try, fail. If he got to the point of being totally perplexed, he would go to YouTube videos. He advised novices to seek out the creative people, “Know the people who know.” Emmett suggested the new maker educators look at what has been done by the innovators and build on their work. He acknowledged the frustrating times but reminded himself that the discovery is half the fun.

Significant events and influences . Emmett was influenced greatly by the nurturing of creativity in his family environment. He also had many teachers that made an impression on him.

However, his single favorite memory of an educator is also his earliest memory of a favorite teacher. This educator was an inspirational fourth grade teacher whose lessons and classroom style have stayed vivid in Emmett’s mind to this day. He encouraged his students to draw but 128 was really known for his use of creative dramatics. The culminating project for each year was the class play. Part of the project was building and decorating the costumes with cardboard boxes and paper mâché. This teacher also wrote a musical called “The Woolybooger,” taught his class of 30 students all the songs, and how to play them ukulele. Emmett believed that this teacher was so loved by his students that none of them wanted to disappoint him. Emmett set his goal of becoming an elementary teacher who did not simply teach content in preparation for taking a standardized test. Even 40 years later, every once in a while, Emmett will sit back to reflect on his own teaching by asking, “How well am I emulating what he did?” Inspired by his favorite teacher, Emmett developed his pedagogy and curriculum to engage his students with hands-on meaningful projects that made learning fun.

Emmett used the funds from his two Lilly educator grants to explore his interest in cartooning and animation. He used the learning from his summer experiences to develop a character building activity that helped his students address social-emotional issues. Emmett was also very proud to be a LEGO Master Educator. As a master educator, he was a part of a team of

100 nationwide educators that work with LEGO Education to develop and test new products for classroom use. Emmett felt that his philosophy of education was supported by how LEGO promotes playful learning with their products.

During Emmett’s senior year at teacher’s college, he was assigned to write a 3-4-page paper explaining philosophy of education. Emmett summarized his philosophy in one sentence on a single page typed in the largest font, “Learning should be fun, interesting, and deal with the big picture.” It was accepted by his professor. Now, after 30 years of teaching, Emmett has been able to share more details about his pedagogy. When he learned about constructivism, it was like 129

“was another one of those little light bulbs and switches clicking” on and validating his ideas about teaching. Emmett believed that authentic learning had to be experiential.

Although he had won many awards and grants, Emmett defined his greatest successes not in typical tangible terms. Instead, he shared that his measure as a teacher was most meaningful when the students asked if they could come to the maker lab and work on a project during their recess or lunch period. When students were willing to invest their own time, then Emmett knew they were hooked on learning.

Future goals. Emmett said he had already reached his academic goals because he had already earned his master’s degree in school administration and then realized he had no intention of becoming an administrator. His only goals that remained were self-directed. Emmett wanted to become better trained at MIT’s Scratch programming and to understand Arduinos well enough to teach about them. Both goals were related to improving his own skills and acquiring knowledge that he could transfer to his students. Emmett intended to teach for another 10 years.

Summary . Emmett’s story informs us of an educator who grew up in a nurturing household where his talents and passions were encouraged at an early age. His parents lived in a prosperous community where Emmett was taught by gifted and multitalented teachers. His family’s many relocations and travels exposed him to a wide range of experiences that enriched his understanding of the world and was reflected in his drawings. Although Emmett grew up with many advantages, he did not always take the easier paths. Despite advice from professors to study in a more lucrative field, his desire to make a difference in the lives of young students was a driving force that he was able to keep in mind. Emmett was one of the rare teachers who realized at an early age that his destiny would be in education. His time, energy, and focus were single streamed into his life goal of being a teacher as excellent as the ones he had as a child. As 130 a teacher, Emmett spent many hours acquiring the skills for designing and building Lego robots.

His creative skills for drawing and cartooning that began for him as a child became an important part of his classroom pedagogy and curriculum. The knowledge that Emmett gained from his technology positions helped him with the programming aspects of robotics. Through the maker education curriculum, Emmett was able to merge and validate his contrasting and seemingly incompatible passions. His emphasis on making mistakes, failing, and learning from that experience was a testament to the importance of how skills are developed through practice and how a novice became a master educator.

Penelope

For the last 12 years, Penelope—a 40-year-old Hispanic woman—had been the science specialist in a low-income rural school near the Gulf Coast of Texas. As a science specialist in an elementary setting, she was a lab teacher using strictly hands-on activities and projects. Penelope was also the science team lead teacher in charge of organizing schedules and curriculum. Her interviews for the study occurred 4 months after a career change and focused on her experiences as a STEAM maker–educator in a Texas public school.

Background. Both of Penelope’s parents were field workers. Neither had graduated from high school. Her grandmother had a second grade education and was also a field worker.

Penelope’s mother eventually finished high school and then tried to get a degree in nursing but was not able to afford the tuition. Later, she was hired and trained by H&R Block to do tax preparations and returns. Penelope’s mother consistently pushed Penelope to study hard to become educated. Penelope’s father also returned to school to earn his GED. Afterward, he was trained as a pipe fitter and learned about sprinkler systems. When Penelope was in middle school, her father was promoted and became a supervisor. 131

As a child, Penelope always struggled with focus. She believed that she had ADHD before ADHD was a diagnosis. Her mother saw Penelope’s energy and recognized the need for

Penelope to channel her energy in constructive ways. Penelope recalled, “My mom literally kept me busy from morning to night.” After school each day, she would be scheduled for an activity such as dancing. Penelope would return home around 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. and then do her homework. As a result, college work and time management were not difficult for Penelope when the time came, but she still struggled with listening to lectures.

Penelope recalled that she was exposed to a lot of hands-on activities in elementary school, but it happened more during social studies classes during the schoolyear. During the summers though, Penelope’s mom enrolled her in science classes at the local university. Each year, she would take a science class with a different focus such as astronomy or geology. The classes were taught by professors on a university campus. Penelope remembered that the students were able to see and touch different types of rocks and go on field trips. The summer programs are where Penelope believed she ended up getting her “real interest in science.” In high school,

Penelope had a dynamic calculus teacher who helped her make the connections between math and science. This understanding led to Penelope’s love of STEM subjects.

Education and experience . In college, Penelope was a premed major doubling up in biology and chemistry. Because there were no college counselors around to show her how to find scholarships or low-interest government loans to finance her college education, Penelope relied mainly on high-interest loans for tuition. Penelope revealed that she only purchased one book during her entire college career, because of a lack of funds. The one book purchased was a mandatory consumable lab book. Fortunately, Penelope had developed her auditory learning skills, became an avid notetaker, and typed out the lectures on her laptop as they were delivered 132 by her professors. She also found friends who shared their summaries of the book assignments in exchange for her meticulous class notes.

However, it did not take long for Penelope’s college loans payments to overwhelm her ability to repay. So, Penelope stopped going to school. She got married and had children. When her sons were school-aged, Penelope returned to school at age 28, and graduated in 2008 with a bachelor’s degree in rehabilitative services. The degree allowed her to become a licensed professional counselor. The counseling job paid for her to get her master’s degree in rehabilitative services. When Penelope’s sons were in elementary and middle schools, they were at opposite ends of the academic spectrum. One child had processing difficulties and needed extra help. The other son needed more challenges in order to stay engaged. He came home with packets of worksheets. When he completed his worksheets, his teachers gave him more worksheets. To address their needs, Penelope pulled both boys out of school and homeschooled them. Penelope was very organized with the homeschool curriculum. She learned how to teach to the range of needs for her sons. Penelope discovered that she really enjoyed teaching her sons, especially the science and math contents. So, she took the additional coursework to get her alternative teaching certification, took the PRAXIS tests and went into education. The science classes Penelope took as an undergraduate helped greatly in getting hired for the science specialist position.

School environment . Penelope’s school was a low-income, rural Title I school. The students were 99.9% Hispanic, 100% free lunch, 92% economically disadvantaged, 89% at risk of dropping out, and 91% limited English proficiency. As a dual language campus, every teacher taught in both English and Spanish. Most of the science classes were in English, but one section of science was taught purely in Spanish. Despite the statistics, the students had very good scores 133 in science and math. The fifth-grade group especially had great success, with 100% passing and over 50% of the students were commended meaning a score of 90% or higher. When Penelope started teaching at the school 12 years ago, there were approximately 950 students. Three years ago, another school was built a mile away and the student enrollment was halved.

When Penelope was first hired at the school 12 years ago as a fifth-grade teacher, the students were not performing very well in science. Only about 50% were passing the state assessment. Students did not enjoy the science lessons that were taught by the homeroom teachers. Penelope suggested to the other teachers that they should all become specialists in a specific content. One teacher taught the same content to all the fifth graders. While another teacher taught all the foundational content for science, Penelope turned her section of science lessons into the hands-on labs and projects. The principal was supportive of the departmentalization of content because “nothing else was working” and it was worth a try. The scores increased to 68% passing that year and to 74% the next year. Each year, the state scores rose incrementally. The more the teachers got used to rotating, the more they took ownership of the learning for their own homerooms and for the entire grade level of students. The scores of the fifth grade elevated the average score for the entire school. Penelope and her science co-teacher planned the lessons together to reinforce the student learning objectives. Her partner presented the theories during his class time with a group and then she provided the experiential aspects with hands-on activities or projects that showed the applications of the theories. Later, the planning team included 5 th grade math and reading teachers to provide even more cross-cutting connections between the content areas for the students. By taking extra time to plan lessons together, the teachers were able to reinforce the learning by increasing students’ exposure to 134 applications of the theories in other subject areas. Seeing the science used in other ways increased the relevance of the content.

One of the greatest challenges for Penelope was the amount of paperwork she and her colleagues were required to complete. Lesson plans had to be turned in a week in advance with details concerning the focus and purpose of activities. More records were also required for classes with lab work. Additional paperwork was expected if students did not turn in homework or were failing. More forms had to be completed to provide help for students who were struggling. Penelope and her 5 th grade team found the paperwork overwhelming, but they pooled their efforts by meeting at a coffee shop, often after school hours, “to get it done.”

Penelope invested her time to research grants for the science program. Since her school was based in a rural agricultural region, funds were available for a year-round vegetable garden that was the length of the school cafeteria and also a butterfly rescue garden. In addition to studying plants, insects, and pollination, the gardens were ideal for earth science lessons such as weather and geology. The science team taught the students outdoors as much as they could.

Penelope’s students were inspired by her efforts to apply for an EcoRise grant for students. The results of their student-designed study justified the change from Styrofoam plates in their cafeteria to biodegradable paper trays. The students received another grant that funded two ponds in their garden area to compare and contrast the effects of aquatic plants on water quality.

Penelope showed her students how to solve local problems with their own ingenuity and maker mindset. Her students had to apply for the grants without help from teachers. She recalled, “The students were so excited when they got the money and we got to talk about and research what to purchase for the project.” During her 12 years at the school, Penelope was an avid grant writer and brought in over $200,000 to fund projects for various programs. 135

Penelope acknowledged that she enjoyed seeking out new skills for lessons. She spent a lot of time checking out emails, magazine articles, and social media for innovative ideas. If something caught her interest, then she “might invest an hour going down that rabbit hole” often, while multitasking. The advice that Penelope gave new teachers was to never stop learning. She believed that novice educators needed to remember:

No one is a perfect educator at the beginning. It is okay to admit you don’t know

something or that you need to research. It’s okay of you have issues with classroom

management. It’s okay if you struggle with lesson planning or understanding data. No

one is perfect, and no one should make you feel like you have to be perfect right out the

gate.

Other suggestions for new teachers were to read up on the latest techniques, ask other teachers for help, do teacher professional development, and to take time for oneself. She warned,” If you don’t keep recharging your own batteries, you won’t have any energy for your students either.”

Penelope believed that like any relationship between two people needed work, the relationship between an educator and their teaching profession also required work.

Significant events and influences . When asked whether she had any teachers who influenced her teaching style, Penelope told about her second-grade teacher. There was a game that the class played called “Around the World” where students moved around the room. The teacher noticed that Penelope who was competitive, hated playing the game, especially if she was sitting in the back of the room. The teacher suggested that Penelope needed her vision checked. The optometrist’s tests verified that she needed glasses. Remembering the impact her teacher’s concern had on her, Penelope advised, “Part of being an educator is you have to care about your students and put that in your teaching. If you don’t care about your students, they’re 136 going to feel it.” Penelope felt that a teacher going the extra mile and being thoughtful enough to figure out what’s going on with their students is what really makes a difference in the performance of the students.

During her 2 nd year of teaching, Penelope was a finalist for an H-E-B Excellence in

Education Award as a rising star teacher. She equated the prize money—$1000 for her and

$1000 for her school—to the Oscars of teaching in Texas. As she gained recognition for her work, Penelope felt encouragement and endorsement from her administrators and fifth grade team, but also sensed some resentment from a few other colleagues. Support from her team reassured Penelope to maintain her exuberant stride. Five years later, Penelope received the H-E-

B award in the leadership category, which was $10,000 for her and $10,000 for her school. The awards validated Penelope’s hard work, creativity, and passion.

Future goals . Penelope had just been hired as an education outreach coordinator 4 months before the interviews. Her new job was funded through a grant that developed space- related curricula, competitions, and programs for K-12 educators and students throughout Texas in collaboration with NASA educators. Her work included developing and overseeing summer programs for students and professional development for teachers. In response to questions about her future career plans, Penelope smiled and said, “I’m living my goal.” She missed seeing her students on a daily basis but did enjoy catching up with them whenever she visited schools for teacher professional development, science fairs, and presentations. Penelope noted that she was still able to attend STEM conferences and work with curriculum development but now she no longer had to deal with “all the red tape” that educators have.

Summary. Penelope’s story reveals an energetic, resilient, and self-motivated educator who worked hard teach to herself and others to overcome many challenges. Penelope’s formative 137 years included growing up in a first-generation immigrant family of farm workers. She was energetic as a youngster and struggled with focus. The language and cultural barriers were a hindrance as well. Penelope did not have a support system in place to assist with finances for tuition or books when she attended college the first time. Like many children of immigrants,

Penelope helped her parents by learning standard English at school and on her own in order to translate the details on household bills and other legal documents. Because of her mother’s positive attitude and proactive stance to address Penelope’s issues with attention and focus at an early age, Penelope acquired the skills to channel her energy towards constructive activities.

Penelope also learned to navigate through the channels of higher education in order to attain her goal of a college education. By developing symbiotic collaborations with her college classmates to share the lecture notes and book summaries, Penelope used creative problem-solving skills in order to complete her coursework. She drew from these experiences to develop strong negotiating, collaborative, and communicative skills to write the grants, lesson plans, and curriculum maps for her experiential STEM maker classroom. Penelope used similar collaborative skills to build a strong departmentalized fifth grade team that raised standardized test scores of their students and increased the average scores for the entire school.

Raven

Raven—a Black woman in her mid-50s—taught at an urban public school on the Gulf

Coast of Texas. Her middle school had just celebrated its 30-year anniversary. At the time of the interviews, Raven had been teaching middle school science for 4 years. Previously, she had taught at a public elementary school as a science lead and a science lab teacher for first through fifth grades. Prior to teaching in public schools, Raven taught first and third grade at a private

Montessori school for 3 years. She was a curriculum writer for the Rice University STEMScopes 138 newsletter . Raven also taught for the NASA High School Aerospace Scholars (HAS) summer program at Johnson Space Center in Houston. She was also the creator and administrator of a

Facebook page for STEAM educators that shares lesson plans, professional development opportunities, and topics of concern.

Background. As a child, Raven was impacted by the closeness of her immediate and extended family. Her maternal aunts were a huge influence. Raven’s mother and aunts grew up without parents. When her maternal grandfather died, her grandmother remarried, was widowed again after a brief marriage, and died shortly after her second husband’s passing when Raven’s mother was 4. The aunts—Raven’s mother’s older sisters—went to court to become the legal guardians of Raven’s mother. Raven explained, “That’s the kind of closeness I grew up with.”

Even though her aunts took on the responsibility of raising her mother, all except one went to college. They set the example for Raven that despite their obstacles in life, they were still able to get a good education.

Raven attributed most of her teaching style to her mother. She recalled how her mother read to her as a child with so much enthusiasm. Every character in a story had a different voice.

Raven’s mother made every character come alive. Listening to her mother, the next step for

Raven was to visualize the story in her head. Her mother also instilled an appreciation for precision and creativity in her handiwork and art projects. Raven shared that her mother had the attributes of a teacher and had some interests in science. Eventually, when Raven and her sister were older, their mother went back to work as a nurse’s aide in a senior center. Raven attributed her sense of responsibility and follow-through to her father. Raven called her father “Pops” and shared that he was “a bit of an enigma.” Pops was also known as Neighborhood Pops, Grandpa

Pops, and Neighborhood Grandpa. Although he did not finish high school, he was self-educated. 139

He understood the workings of politics, civics, and government. Raven’s father knew a lot for a person who did not go to college. Raven described her father as “a good father, a wee bit strict,” but that growing up, all her needs were met, and she did not realize that her family was poor. As a child, Raven loved books, not dolls and other toys; her father made sure Raven had the books that reinforced her love of reading. Raven knew she had good parents but did not understand how good her parents were until she started teaching.

Academically, Raven’s time in elementary school was “not a good experience.” After she stood out as a strong reader, her homeroom teacher asked Raven to read passages from the textbook to the class. The teacher would then sit back and read the daily newspaper. Raven was picked on by other students because they assumed she was the teacher’s pet. As easily as reading and writing came to Raven, her learning of math concepts was a struggle. Years later,

Raven realized she had dyscalculia (math dyslexia) which hindered her ability to learn number- related concepts and perform math skills. There were no opportunities for experiential learning in her neighborhood elementary school to make the learning relatable. Then, Raven enrolled in a nearly all-White junior high. The classes were more engaging, with a few hands-on activities in biology and history classes. During her first 9 weeks, she had Ds in all her classes. Raven was confident and motivated enough to rise to the challenge; she turned her grades around to mostly

As and Bs. However, not until Raven took anatomy and physiology courses in high school was she consistently provided with opportunities to learn experientially. Raven shared, “It was like a whole new world opened up because it was something I could do.” After becoming a decent student, Raven felt that “a person can learn, even out of a negative.”

Education and experience . Before Raven became a certified public-school teacher, she was a Montessori teacher with Montessori certification for Grades K-6. Raven noted that her 140

Montessori credentials were recognized in some states, such as Oklahoma, as the equivalent of a master’s degree. Raven then found a public school closer to her home that had a Montessori magnet program. By that time, Raven also had a general education degree to teach at the elementary level. At that elementary school one day, the principal noted Raven’s style of teaching while doing the morning walk-through. Raven was offered the opportunity to become the elementary science specialist in the new science lab because their current science specialist had just resigned. Raven stepped into the job and taught as much content as possible through hands-on activities and projects. When Raven started teaching, the passing rate for the state science test was only 42%. She promised the principal that she would raise the science scores to

90% passing in 3 years. Raven fulfilled her promise in 2 years, with 93% passing. She credited the hands-on pedagogy and the Montessori philosophy.

During this time period, Raven earned her master’s degree in science education and was licensed to teach in Texas for Grades 1–8. In addition, she trained and received her certification to teach reading but did not mention it to administrators because she did not want to be a reading teacher. She was ABD on her doctorate in curriculum and instruction.

School environment . Raven described the middle school where she taught as a “hood” school. A hood or neighborhood school has mostly students who live in its surrounding vicinity.

The school was low on the socioeconomic index and there were huge deficits in the students’ learning. Most of the 132 students were poor readers, which led to a lot of behavior problems.

The parents at the school were divided evenly between parents who were extremely grateful for what the teachers did and were very supportive and other parents who were busy working, did not know how to deal with their own children, and were unable or unwilling to provide support for the teachers in discipline issues. 141

Raven was teaching eight STEM classes per day without a lab, trying to find ways to show the students, in a hands-on way, the content that was in their textbooks. Raven had to deal with outrageous behaviors, very little technology, and students who were afraid to let anyone know that they could not read the information on the board. The classroom did have some 3D printers. Raven adhered to the experiential pedagogy of the Montessori philosophy, positing that

“learning is in the hand before it is in the head.” The maker mindset reinforced her Montessori training. She integrated as many hands-on activities as possible into the sixth grade STEM curriculum. Because her students’ reading levels were so low, Raven maintained to administrators that her students needed experiential opportunities to make their learning more effective.

Raven’s sixth graders came to her with only a minimal grasp of the fifth grade science foundation concepts. Her students should have been exposed to specific skills in fifth grade, but there had not been enough time left over after the state test preparation. Raven challenged herself to solve the dilemma of how to teach the fifth grade science foundation that her students needed to understand the sixth grade science concepts. In addition, she needed to teach the concepts related to the state test that the administrators required. So, Raven had to overcome. She did so by embedding Kolb’s cycles of learning into the structure of her lesson plans. She began by providing a hands-on activity or experiment for her students. In their journal write-up of the experience, Raven had them describe and draw what was observed and explain what they thought was happening in the event. Then the students discussed in class to clarify the concept that they had observed. The last step of the cycle was for the students to apply the concept to another situation, ideally to solve a problem. Because there was so much content to cover, Raven increased the efficiency of the lessons by learning how to multitask within the learning cycles in 142 order to teach and enhance the learning for her students. The addition of journals provided reinforcement for learning the vocabulary. Raven explained:

If I have to teach the water cycle, and I know the students have not gotten the vocabulary,

then I’m going to teach the vocabulary as I introduce the water cycle, as I demonstrate

the water cycle, and as I have them write and draw in their journals about the water cycle.

I make sure they do the vocabulary for the water cycle as they’re reading, writing,

drawing, and labeling.

Raven could not recall when she first discovered the multitasking learning cycle process, but she believed it came about as she herself had to cope with her own learning differences. She had to learn how to learn; so, she learned how to learn on her own.

Raven shared her personal struggle with dyscalculia with her students. Whenever math was involved in her classroom, she would show the students the standard way to solve a math problem. She would say, “I need someone who is good in math to check this.” Then after a student had checked the math, Raven would ask if anyone could see another way to solve the problem. She then demonstrated her method, “Now this way is for people with a learning disability.” Often, students would say that her solution made a lot more sense. Raven felt it was important for her students to understand that she never gave up and that there was more than one way to solve a problem.

Raven spent about 6 hours per week with the sixth grade professional learning community (PLC) that decided how to address the student learning objectives by designing lesson plans with focus on vocabulary, experiential activities, and the assessment. The time spent on PLC collaborations was Raven’s greatest peeve since she felt the meetings were not an efficient use of her time. Raven felt one team leader was condescending toward her in their 143 working relationship: “On occasion, we bumped heads because she wanted to interpret to me what I said. It’s like mansplaining, only with a woman.” The micromanaging by administrators was wearing Raven down. In addition, she spent 2 hours after school on classroom maintenance each week. For most of her colleagues, Raven was the go-to person for information and ideas.

She felt their support and encouragement for her success. She beamed as she shared how she felt when other asked for her advice, “I feel my demeanor change. It’s like a switch turns on, and suddenly, I’m sitting up taller, my diction changes, and my attitude changes because now, I’m talking about something important.” Raven was proud of her accomplishments and credibility with her students and colleagues. Raven chose to distance herself when possible from one colleague who was outwardly jealous of her strengths and influence.

Raven advised novice educators to adapt stories into relatable lessons for the students.

She began the lesson design with a reference point. It could have been a story or an incident from popular culture or social media. Raven started by asking her students a question such as, “Have you ever wondered what happens when you eat hot pizza and then eat ice cream and, OMG, you get brain freeze? Well, this is why!” Raven suggested that teachers need to take events that students can relate to and then make science lessons out of those phenomena. Projects like class gardens were a favorite springboard for designing her thematic units. She also recommended that teachers take part in professional development opportunities where they are able to network with other likeminded educators. Raven had a few close friends with whom she was able to exchange ideas. She also taught during summers for special STEM programs operated through local universities in collaborations with NASA where she always acquired new skills and lessons for her STEM maker classrooms. 144

Significant events and influences . Raven was greatly influenced by her extended family, particularly her aunts. All of Raven’s aunts were either teachers or nurses. One of

Raven’s aunts shared stories of how as a young child, Raven pretended to be a teacher with her toys as the students. Raven shared that she did not remember doing that as a child, but her aunt said that she had always been a teacher. Raven had always “been one to explain.” When Raven got in trouble as a child, she would explain her rationale to her father, “Well, this is why I did that, Dad.” Raven’s ability to explain events and phenomena in detail would become an important aspect of her teaching.

Raven’s pedagogy was influenced greatly by Maria Montessori, the Italian physician and educator who was an advocate for childhood learning to be natural and experiential. She explained with conviction:

Marie took what we would consider ghetto kids, and latchkey kids who didn’t have

anyone at home. They were all classified as mentally deficient, but the bottom line was

they had not been exposed. Intelligence is a function of exposure.

Inspired by Montessori’s philosophy of education, Raven believed with a passion that the job of the teacher was to break the content down completely for the students, expose them to it, and allow them to make their own decisions. Like Montessori, Raven felt that if she could teach her students experientially, then the content would not be so difficult for them to grasp.

Future goals. Raven left a teaching situation in an elementary school, where the facilities were set up according to her vision, to go to a more difficult teaching environment in a middle school. She admitted that she enjoyed new challenges because she was still learning while in the process of establishing a new classroom and curriculum. She shared that accepting new challenges was a way of stretching herself because her ultimate goal was to teach preservice 145 elementary or middle school teachers at the university level. Raven loved teaching and shared, “I don’t think I will ever really retire.” For now, she will continue to work on her dissertation.

Summary . From Raven’s story, we learn about an educator who is resilient, resourceful, and passionate about her teaching. The closeness of a loving and supportive family provided her with the confidence and motivation to overcome her childhood experiences in the neighborhood elementary school. She and her schoolmates did not have teachers who exposed them to hands- on activities, mnemonic devices, graphic organizers, or curricula presented with relatable connections. From these deficits, Raven was determined that she would be an educator who made sure that her students would learn in an experiential classroom with a STEM maker curriculum that integrated all content areas. What Raven learned from the negative aspects of her early schooling became an asset for her as she embarked on her maker educator journey. She integrated Kolb’s four-part cycle of learning with carefully selected multidisciplinary projects such as a school garden to reinforce previously unaddressed student learning objectives. Thus,

Raven and her students were able to accomplish more in less time through experiential units of study. Furthermore, Raven’s students had effective learning experiences where the learning was authentic and enduring. She designed her lessons while keeping the words of an education professor in mind, “A kid will never learn to tie his shoes, if you tie them for him.” With the intentional restraint of Montessori in mind, Raven facilitated classrooms where exciting and engaging hands-on lessons reinforced the learning with deeper and richer understandings of the content in order for her students to discover and make decisions on their own.

Emergent Themes

The six narratives drew upon the continuity of the experiences of the participants to capture the development of teachers as they transformed into master maker educators. The 146 educators’ stories of their lived experiences as learners, teachers, colleagues, and mentors provided a collective view of the elements that help shape a maker educator. From the narratives, four common themes emerged in response to the guiding research questions: the teacher’s background, the development of the educator’s skills, the teacher’s support from administrators and colleagues, and the teacher’s attributes.

The Teacher’s Background

The backgrounds of the six maker educators impacted them and influenced their development and effectiveness as educators, particularly as teachers of a new curriculum – maker education. Analysis of the participants’ family structure and dynamics provided insights into different types of background factors that provided each with distinct experiences during their childhoods that would help them later in life as STEAM maker educators. The subthemes that emerged from the individual narratives were family dynamics, participant’s experiences as a student with educators, and the participant’s experiences with their learning differences.

Family dynamics. All the participants were influenced in different ways by their family dynamics during their formative years. The dynamics of a family included its structure, the family’s socioeconomic status, and the family’s expectations of the participants for themselves and their future. These elements worked together in various combinations at different times during the formative years of the participants to impact their ways of interpreting and interacting with their environment.

Structure. Four of the six participants—Danasa, Emmett, Raven and Penelope—were from traditional family structures with both a mother and father and siblings present in their daily lives. The family structure was mentioned by participants because it shaped how many people the participants saw in their daily lives. The more people the participant saw, the more the 147 participant would be allowed to observe how these people interacted with each other and addressed problems in their environment. Danasa recollected how her family interacted by playing games and performing music together. Emmett talked about helping his father at his family’s T-shirt shop. Penelope talked about her parents starting off as migrant workers and assimilating into American culture. Raven recalled how her mother reading to her daily impressed upon her the love of books and how her father was a self-taught man who worked hard to provide her with the books she wanted. Danasa, Emmett, Raven, and Penelope also mentioned extended family members who were influential in their lives. Raven’s parents and aunts were very close and that helped the family provide a sense of security when dealing with hurdles. Two participants came from nontraditional families and lived with a divorced single parent. Amanda lived with her younger sister and custodial mother. Demetrio lived with his older brother and single father. As latchkey children, Amanda and Demetrio acquired the skills to tackle problems on their own as a matter of survival. Thus, family structure can determine how much exposure a young person would have to see adults address issues in their daily lives.

Conversely, having fewer adults around to answer questions and to address concerns would require the participant to learn experientially how to problem solve on their own.

Socioeconomic status. The socioeconomic status of a participant’s family was another important factor because it was directly related to the number of obstacles or opportunities encountered during their formative years. Five of the six participants came from middle- or low- income families. A few of the parents were able to attend school and advance to skills-based jobs as their children grew older. Although Danasa’s parents did not have college degrees, they had received training that enabled them to earn enough wealth to pursue their passions. Danasa came from a family of visual and performing artists who realized the value of education and 148 encouraged Danasa “to self-direct to try new things” in order to find her own interests. Amanda grew up in poverty and attended a school with few experiential opportunities. She also noted that her family’s socioeconomic status was a major factor in her decision to work with children of poverty. Raven’s family provided for her needs and enough of her wants such that she did not realize her family was poor until she transferred to an all-White middle school, where she was finally exposed to hands-on classroom activities. As first-generation immigrants, Penelope’s family, including her grandmother, pooled their resources to provide her with afterschool and summer programs to channel her energy and provide enrichment. Demetrio mentioned the devastation and general poverty of the neighborhoods in his community. He was motivated to move beyond what he saw. Of the 6 participants, only Emmett came from affluence. His family encouraged him to choose his own college and seek his own path in life.

Responsibilities and expectations. Every participant felt the weight of responsibilities and expectations from their family. Four of the educators were latchkey children, so a sense of responsibility was developed earlier in life. Because her mother attended night school, Amanda was responsible for ensuring that her sister got off the school bus safely, that she and her sister both did their homework and other chores right after school, and that they got supper started for themselves and their mother. Demetrio recalled how his father was only able to help with homework until Demetrio reached the eighth grade. After that, Demetrio had to complete his homework without assistance, unlike many of his classmates whose parents were engineers or executives. Similarly, Penelope and Raven had many household duties placed on them at a young age and also dealt with chores and homework independently because their parents were all employed. Emmett again stood out as an outlier because he came from an affluent family and his mother did not work until he was older. However, his parents encouraged him to learn 149 responsibility when they allowed Emmett to babysit for a younger neighbor, assist at the school where his mother taught, and work in his father’s T-shirt store. Several teachers shared that they were influenced by the expectations of specific members of their family. The teachers had varying degrees of expectation about graduating from college. Danasa shared how there was support from her extended family to earn a college degree because no one else had yet. For

Raven, Amanda, Penelope, and Demetrio, a college education represented a path to social and economic mobility. Emmett was encouraged by his maternal grandmother and uncle to explore his talent in drawing at the college with a suitable program.

Summary . For the six participants, several as latchkey children, being responsible for themselves at an early age helped them to be self-starters when it came to problem solving. All the participants’ families had high expectations and aspirations for their futures. Most families provided encouragement, and some pushed. Their individual self-motivation and drive came from nurturing or its absence. As maker educators, these teachers accepted the challenges and began on their own to figure out how to make things work.

Personal experiences with educators. Five of the six participants (all but Amanda) spoke of having an educator who influenced them in different ways. The educators who were memorable to the participants fell mainly into one of three categories: the significant teacher, the phenomenal teacher, and the marginal teacher. The faces of participants who had a phenomenal teacher at some point during their education lit up when they related their stories.

Significant teacher. The significant teacher was one who invested more in the students than what was expected of them. Demetrio, who had failed algebra twice already, recalled how it was the math teacher who was able and willing to explain it to him so he understood it and was able to apply that knowledge. Demetrio felt that this teacher was able to teach him math in a way 150 that made the difficult learning attainable. For Penelope, it was a teacher who cared. Penelope’s elementary teacher cared enough to suggest that Penelope have her vision examined because she avoided playing a game that required her to read the board from the back of the classroom. To

Penelope, that teacher was paying as much attention to her well-being as to her performance as a student.

Phenomenal teacher. Phenomenal teachers are educators who consistently amaze and inspire their students with their pedagogy, content knowledge, and charisma. Danasa was fortunate to have two teachers who were notable during her school years. The first was an elementary reading and spelling teacher who made learning fun while also teaching his students important skills that included how to focus, take notes, and collaborate. Danasa shared how the students loved learning from this teacher so much, they all wanted to do well in his class to please him. Danasa’s second teacher of note was her high school band director, who integrated citizenship, cultural studies, and 21 st century skills into his curriculum. Similarly, Emmett had a multitalented fourth grade teacher who he still found inspirational at the time of the interviews for his experiential curriculum and ambitious projects, such as teaching a class of 30 students to play the ukulele. While Emmett had other favorite teachers, his fourth grade teacher was his first and most favorite memorable teacher for making learning fun.

Marginal teacher. The marginal teacher is one who demonstrates little or no passion for teaching. Raven described several teachers who were examples of how teachers should not act in the classroom. She told how many of her teachers in the neighborhood elementary school approached the students with a deficit model of thinking by assuming that because they were poor and Black, the “manager style” or crowd-control curriculum would be best. Specifically,

Raven mentioned a teacher who used her and her strength as a reader to read the instructions of 151 the day to the rest of her class to provide the teacher with a short newspaper reading break.

Raven recalled, “She didn’t want to be bothered and she knew I could keep them entertained.”

While it was possible that her teacher meant for Raven to focus on her talent for reading instead of her struggles with math, such intentions were not effectively communicated to Raven. She remained skeptical about the teacher’s aim in having her read aloud to the rest of the class.

Summary. The educators’ experiences as learners often inspired them to become educators with similar pedagogical styles and philosophies. This was especially true for Danasa and Emmett, who had several inspirational teachers. Demetrio and Penelope felt that a teacher taking extra time to explain the content in a different way to help a student understand or to show concern for a student well-being also made a difference in their perception of the teacher, themselves, and learning in school. Raven shared how her negative experiences with her own teachers provided her with a challenge to make a difference in the lives of her students. The exception was Amanda, who did not recall any teachers who made an exceptional difference to her as a learner.

Personal struggles with learning differences. The curricula, pedagogy, and culture in teachers’ classrooms are often shaped by an educator’s experiences as a learner, particularly if they had disabilities, differences, or other factors that affected their own learning in formal education settings. Amanda, Penelope, Raven, Demetrio, and Danasa discussed their personal hurdles with learning and how they overcame the challenges. The stories of the teachers’ struggles exposed how the teachers were affected by their disabilities, how they overcame their disabilities, and how their disabilities have influenced their teaching.

Struggles with disabilities and differences. Five of the six educators (all except Emmett) related their struggles with learning differences or disabilities during their formative school 152 years. Amanda recalled how she struggled with focus because her “mind wandered everywhere” and was not diagnosed with attention deficit disorder (ADD) until she became an adult. Penelope explained how she was “always ADHD” as a child and struggled with listening to lectures and other content where the teacher would “stand and deliver.” Although Raven scored high on the language arts portion of the assessment for giftedness, her math score was low because of her dyscalculia and she was not allowed into the gifted program at her school. Demetrio did not mention a formal diagnosis, but he shared his challenges:

I was kind of a late bloomer. I failed algebra in my eighth grade year. I thought I was

stupid. I failed it my ninth grade year again, thinking I was dumb, that something was

wrong with me. I finally passed it my 10 th grade year and I understood it. Later on, I

found out that I wasn’t gifted with a great memory. I understood things really well; but I

just didn’t have that photographic memory.

Like Demetrio, Danasa was not tested or diagnosed for a learning disability, but she also related struggles with her learning. Although Danasa had a strong memory, she needed more time to study and process the content. She remembered how as a student she learned better visually and experientially, but content was not always delivered in a student-centered manner. Danasa believed as a student that her learning had to conform to the teacher’s style of teaching. These five participants met with hurdles as learners early in their lives. The manner in which their learning disabilities and differences were overcome provided important learning opportunities and insights for them.

Overcoming their challenges. The five participants who commented on their learning struggles as students overcame their hurdles in various ways and at different times in their lives.

Penelope’s mother noticed Penelope’s high level of energy when she was in elementary school. 153

Penelope was kept busy with dancing lessons and watched closely so she could learn how to pay attention to the tasks at hand. Because Penelope struggled with staying focused during middle and high school, and later in college with classes where the content was delivered in lectures, she began to take notes and later typed out the most important points. If Penelope just sat and listened during a lecture, her mind would eventually “drift.” She found that the process of notetaking helped her stay focused and she was able to retain the concepts. For similar reasons,

Danasa was also a fervent note taker. She eventually understood that she needed to learn the content in a variety of ways for reinforcement. She shared, “If I have a chance to write it, see a couple of pictures and hear someone explain it, it all seems to come together a little better.

Layering has helped me.” Amanda understood that the consequences would be harsh if she got in trouble at school or failed to do her schoolwork. She recalled how she motivated herself internally, “It was kind of this internal speech, like a mantra almost to get myself to refocus.”

When she was prescribed Adderall, Amanda improved from a struggling B student to an A plus student.

Demetrio’s hurdles were not focus related; rather, he needed to work on his fundamental learning skills and vocabulary. He learned how to overcome his obstacles by taking a class called study technology. There, he learned how his mind learned and how to study efficiently with purpose. After taking the study technology class, Demetrio was able to apply what he learned to other classes. Both his grades and confidence improved because of the study skills class. Raven came from a deficit learning situation and needed a student-centered experiential learning environment. Her mother continued to advocate for her, and eventually Raven was allowed to transfer to an almost all-White school. There, Raven had opportunities to learn experientially with hands-on activities and projects. After a few initial successes, Raven realized that she 154

“could do this.” She worked hard to catch up to her peers and raised her grades. Raven would always struggle with math, but she decided to focus more on her talents and passions which helped her to persevere. She learned that there was almost always more than one way to solve a problem. Through trial and error, the participants found ways to become successful. In their process of overcoming, they learned diligence and resilience—important qualities in the mindset of future maker educators.

Applications of insights. What the teachers each learned from their learning hurdles became important elements of their classroom pedagogy. Instead of trying to hide her struggles with dyscalculia, Raven shared her difficulties with her students. Her determination to overcome became the example she eventually modeled and set for her students. Raven elaborated:

No matter how much I complain, or how much I whine, I absolutely never give up. I have

dyscalculia, so I hate math. My running joke is I don’t like numbers; I can’t count on

them. Numbers give me the blues, but here I am, teaching my kids chemistry, balancing

valences, and teaching them physics. It’s a lot of math.

Raven wanted her students to understand that if she could overcome dyscalculia, an educational disability, to be able to teach science, then they could be successful too, if they worked hard enough. Raven and Demetrio placed emphasis on taking time to set the foundation for the lessons by learning the vocabulary thoroughly. Danasa and Penelope emphasized notetaking, graphic organizers, and color coding to help their students learn and retain the content.

Summary. The participants who had learning challenges during their formative years needed to overcome them so they could be successful in their education. These participants tried various ways—at times with the guidance of parents or teachers and sometimes on their own—to overcome their hurdles. The participants learned different ways to conquer their obstacles 155 through years of experience and trial and error. Along the way, they acquired coping skills and learned which methods worked for them and which did not.

Theme summary . Although the participants’ backgrounds were all different and involved many factors, three elements provide insights to their experiences during their formative years. The first factor was the family dynamics, which looked at the participants’ family structure and interactions between members, the family’s socioeconomic status, and the responsibilities and expectations that family members placed on the participants. The second factor was the participants’ experiences with their own educators during their formative school years; these educators ranged from phenomenal to marginal. The teachers who were taught by a significant or phenomenal educator found characteristics that impacted their pedagogy. The third background element was the participants’ experiences with learning disabilities or differences.

This focused attention on a participant’s struggles, their exploration of ways to overcome those hurdles, and how they applied what they learned to their own maker education spaces. The next section will delve into the development of the proficient maker educator and their journey to acquiring maker skills.

Experiential Development of Maker Skills

Each participant’s narrative described how they acquired the skills and understandings to become a proficient maker educator. Their evolution into maker educators began as children.

When participants observed how other people addressed concerns and issues in their daily lives, they learned the process of problem solving. Participants discussed the adults in their lives who modeled problem solving and shared how these people impacted them. As the participants became educators, their accumulated experiences and skills helped them become increasingly proficient as maker educators. They discovered opportunities for learning more maker skills and 156 ideas that could be applied to the classrooms in different ways. Educators sometimes had to find resources and training on their own, with little guidance. Often, the most valuable insights and skills were acquired unintentionally.

Set the course . The participants had little control over how much exposure they had to experiential learning at school. Exposure to hands-on activities provided several educators with the connections that made classroom learning relevant to their own lives. As maker educators reflecting on their formative years, the participants all expressed how they learned best through hands-on experiential activities. The maker educators all understood the kind of pedagogy and culture that would be most effective for the majority of their students.

Prior experiences and starting points. All the participants were exposed to experiential learning opportunities at some point in their formal education settings. Emmett and Danasa had the richest experiences with significant and phenomenal teachers, beginning in elementary school. Emmett even modeled his maker lab classroom setting and culture in the manner of his favorite elementary teacher. As young students, they were encouraged to explore their passions in art and music through projects and making while they learned their foundational knowledge.

Amanda, Demetrio, Penelope did not have many hands-on opportunities until they reached middle school. Amanda recalled having some experiential opportunities in elementary school, mainly in social studies classes. Of the six participants, Raven stood out as the only one who did not recall any experiential education opportunities during her elementary years. Raven’s first encounters with experiential education were in middle school science classes. Only then did she realize she had potential to excel at science. Because Amanda, Demetrio, Penelope, and Raven had less access to hands-on opportunities during their early years and felt engagement and satisfaction when they eventually were exposed to experiential learning, they were more 157 committed to including experiential pedagogy and curricula as much as they could in their own classrooms.

First steps. In their classrooms, the teachers witnessed validation of the positive impacts of experiential activities in the education of their students. Depending on the level of autonomy and budget that the teachers were allowed by administrators, each of them tried to implement as much of the experiential maker mindset into their curricula as possible. Emmett and Demetrio had generous budgets and the greatest levels of freedom. In Emmett’s maker space, he typically presented a project by explaining a problem or challenge. The students then took over and tried to find solutions given the materials that Emmett had provided. Emmett only stepped in as a guide in reaction to the students’ problems or questions. Demetrio worked with fewer students, so he was able to help them find individual projects. He sat with students individually and asked them about their interests. One of his students was more interested in art than science, so

Demetrio suggested they look into the uses of polarized film. The student researched it and designed an art project that showed different viewpoints—colors and images—as the angle of the artwork or viewer changed. The student’s science mastery project became their art mastery project, and science also became an interest for them.

Penelope and Danasa had earned a moderate level of autonomy in their classrooms because they had helped raise their students’ standardized test scores. They both frequently challenged their students by using NASA STEM curricula, for example, rubber band propelled foam rockets made from pool noodles, recycled cardboard, rubber bands, pipe cleaners, and duct tape. A meter stick and a protractor were added to the design to investigate the relationship between the launch angle and the distance traveled. Students were encouraged to individualize their rockets through the design of the fins and with embellishments. They learned the design 158 process by testing their rockets and redesigning them for better results. Even with these low- budget materials, Penelope and Danasa were able to engage and excite their students while integrating physics with geometry.

Amanda and Raven were expected by administrators to “teach to the test.” From her

Montessori training, Raven still believed that the effective curriculum needed to “get it in their hands so you can put it in their heads.” So, she designed her middle school lessons to cover all the necessary standards but added stories to make the problems relatable.

Whatever the lesson is that I need to teach, I try to think of something that they may have

as a reference point, whether it be popular culture or one of those…. Have you ever

wondered what happens when you eat hot pizza and then eat ice cream and, oh my God,

you get brain freeze? This is why! You take something that they can relate to, and then

you make a science lesson out of it.

Amanda’s second and third grade curriculum was also bound by expectations to prepare for the state tests. However, she was still impacted by what she had learned about the positive outcomes of the Reggio philosophy. The maker activities were a reward for her students’ hard work preparing for the standardized test. By googling maker projects, Amanda found suggestions to implement projects for her younger students that were manageable within her classroom. Then,

Amanda allowed her students to explore the materials. Like Emmett, Amanda was only there to make suggestions when students encountered a problem or had a question.

Maker place. The participants’ maker spaces were located in various parts of their school. Three of the educators had designated maker classrooms that were separate from science labs. Emmet’s public magnet school had just completed a renovation at the end of 2018. His school maker space was relocated from the back, across from the gym, to a prominent location in 159 the center of the school with floor-to-ceiling windows so everyone could view the class activities. Demetrio, at a private boarding school, had a separate maker space outfitted with construction tools, a separate science lab, and a commons area where the students studied at the same time. Danasa, at a public K–8 school, had begun by pushing a cart from homeroom to homeroom in order to provide STEAM activities to the students. At the time of the interviews, the new maker lab had its own space in the former library. Danasa was proud and excited that the maker space had new shelves to store projects in progress and new furniture.

Penelope and Raven were situated at Title I public schools in southern states with warmer climates. Their maker spaces were a part of the science labs, but their science labs also had outdoor components that included garden areas and small ponds. Amanda, at a public Title I elementary school, taught her maker activities in her homeroom. She set up the space for maker activities in her classroom and supplied it with various types of tape, scissors, and cardboard.

Then Amanda introduced her students to the Global Cardboard Challenge by showing them the

YouTube video Caine’s Arcade . She recalled that the setup for her students’ exploration of creativity with cardboard did not take a lot of effort, but the students’ excitement and outcomes were worth the time, messiness, and crowdedness.

Summary. Each teacher experienced their development into proficient maker educators in their own complex and unique way. Their individual journeys provided the educators with various sets and levels of skills at the onset of their transformations. Depending on a teacher’s background, prior exposure to experiential opportunities varied. The age levels and demographics of their students, the culture of their schools, and availability of resources affected how the educators initiated their maker projects. Availability of space, particularly a permanent 160 one, also helped determine the types of projects the maker educators could introduce to their students.

Acquisition of maker skills and understandings. Once the educators’ transformations were underway, they had to find more resources to develop their classroom curricula. Budget for professional development and time constraints impacted the teachers’ options. The educators’ learning style preferences also influenced what was chosen. They all shared their own most frequently used and most effective ways of learning new skills and ideas.

Professional development. All the teachers had attended various formal types of professional development depending on the funds made available to them by their administrators. All of them had also presented at conferences. Often, by being presenters, they received free or discounted registrations. By attending these types of functions, the teachers were able to connect with other like-minded educators and share their ideas and advice. Often the conferences used an attendee platform such as Grenadine that provided updates that included contact information. Educators could establish post conference professional learning communities. Amanda credited a conference for being the first place where she heard of maker education:

It was not an assignment from my corporation or my principal. I got a notification about a

conference in Bloomington and I went since I was the technology coordinator at my

school. The presenters did a big thing on maker ed and that’s when I got excited and

decided to take it upon myself. I took it to my principal, and she supported it even though

she had not heard anything about it since it was so new.

Raven also chose conferences as the best type of professional development for staying current with the constant barrage of new information and technology. At conferences, she could meet 161

STEM educators that she could include in her network of resources. Raven established a

Facebook group page where educators could post ideas from their classrooms or ask questions.

An example of one of her posts was a story about the impact Hurricane Katrina had on

Louisiana. Although the participants attended some professional development chosen by their administrators, the best conferences were chosen by the educators based on their personal interests. Danasa lived in an area where maker training workshops were offered; she attended several that were offered on Saturdays.

I have to say since September, I’ve been at least doing one, possible two a month. There

was an Arduino class I took in November on a Saturday and there was some follow-up. I

brought some people from my department with me so that we could work together

afterward.

Danasa shared that she was constantly in pursuit of professional development opportunities where she could learn new maker ideas or skills. She attended workshops at museums and neighboring universities.

All of the participants also found that webinars were a convenient way to learn new skills because they were delivered online and were often recorded. If the presentation time was not convenient, the archived webinar allowed them to watch the video at a later time. Participants shared that the best conferences, workshops, and webinars were presented by organizations such as the National Science Teaching Association, the International Society for Technology in

Education, or the Space Exploration Educators Conference that is presented at NASA’s Johnson

Space Center.

Collaborations. Working with other people allowed the educators to build their repertoire of skills and grow professionally. The participants found that collaborating with like-minded 162 colleagues advanced their learning journey by having a “sounding board” to develop and exchange new ideas. Danasa was accustomed to collaborations because of her training in performing with teams of other music performers. Penelope realized the benefits of collaboration during her college years. She advocated for the departmentalization of the fifth grade at her school, which was successful in raising test scores and student engagement. Amanda attended two monthly staff meetings for professional development and a weekly guided professional learning community led by a master teacher. The master teacher provided new resources in a format that was ready to apply to the classroom. Amanda also had a district technology expert with a lending library of maker space equipment, such a 3D printer; the technology expert also provided some support. At his previous school, Demetrio had a colleague who exchanged ideas with him. At his new boarding school, Demetrio credited the faculty for being his source of resources and support. Because their school curricula had been project based since its founding, the mindset and culture were already geared towards championing the program. Demetrio also learned new skills and concepts along with his students. Because their projects were based on new technology, no one was an expert. Demetrio and his students learned “on parity.” Amanda also learned while teaching her students. She liked to remind them, “I’m here to help you get a little bit started.” Whenever Amanda worked along with her students and made a mistake, she would admit, “I don’t know what to do, guys!” Her students found it fun and appreciated her honesty and efforts to learn.

Like Demetrio, Raven and Danasa also mentioned having a special colleague who pushed and inspired them. Raven related that within her network of teachers who provided support for each other and attended conferences together, there was one who was older and more experienced who was around to provide a second opinion on issues or concerns. Danasa bonded 163 with an educator from the Honeywell Educators Space Academy who taught at a private school

40 minutes away from her school. They have attended conferences and presented workshops together for several years:

We could take all this stuff that we’ve learned and work together on it. We could share

resources…I get so excited because we have that effect on each other as people that have

the same interests and passions, and it’s just beautiful…So he’s been a real source of

inspiration for me…We push each other to do more professional developments.

When Danasa and her friend could not attend a conference or workshop together, the one who was able to attend would share the new resources with the other. The six participants learned maker skills and content from many other people, including colleagues as mentors and collaborators; they also learned from their students.

Self-taught. The six maker educators also acquired their content knowledge and skills on their own with the guidance of social media and printed matter. All of the participants had

Facebook and Twitter accounts. Several instructors suggested that learning new skills by watching YouTube videos has taught them new ways to scaffold their lessons. Demetrio mentioned the magazines Popular Mechanics and Popular Science and their online formats as helpful resources for getting students engaged in STEM projects.

Emmett articulated the meaning of experiential education and how he related it to his own discovery and acquisition of skills and content in order to teach his students.

When I first heard of constructivism, that was another one of those light bulbs and

switches clicking on and saying yes. You have to build from what you know; you can’t

be told anything. You’re not going to get anything if someone says something to you; you

need to discover it on your own. Someone can lead you there, but when it comes down to 164

it, you’ve got to be the one to gain that understanding. Once you gain that understanding,

it’s yours forever.

Demetrio also emphasized that the particular types of skills a person acquired did not matter as much as a person becoming competent with their sets of skills. He described feeling empowered and gaining confidence as his level of competency grew with learning new skills.

You feel like you have an advantage, and nobody can take that from you. If you know

how to sew, then you can always sew…I always give this example in my classes. They

had these seamstresses when they were making the Apollo spacesuits…. These old ladies

were just master seamstresses and they were making the customized gloves for the

Apollo missions…and they just maximized their sewing skills. There was a skillset there

that without the right people making the spacesuits, they wouldn’t have been able to land

on the Moon.

All six maker educators searched Google and watched YouTube videos to find new techniques, demonstrations, instructions, and recipes so they could grow their own competencies to transfer to their students. For example, Amanda searched Google for maker space ideas and found resources for making stop-motion videos. After watching a few instructional videos, she made her own Claymation video, showed it to her students and said, “Look at this cool thing I learned how to do. I think it’d be really cool if you could come up with your own Claymation story to go with the fables and fairy tales we’re learning about in English.” Her students took her idea and proceeded to explore the possibilities. Also a fan of YouTube videos, Danasa described her acquisition of skills learned from watching a video on soldering.

The more repetitions, the better, and I am far from [having] any sort of expertise with

these [skills]…It’s almost like…ice skating. When I first get on the ice, I feel like I have 165

chicken legs with no balance and a lot of instability. But in about five minutes, I

remember how…to do this. I get my balance and my confidence back, and I’m standing

up straight. By the time I’m off the ice, I feel like a pro although I’m far from it. And

that’s the analogy for how I feel with some of these skills like soldering and remembering

the steps.

Until she was able to practice soldering enough times to remember the steps with automaticity,

Danasa watched the training videos as refreshers right before she demonstrated to her class.

Becoming proficient maker educators was a learning curve for all of the participants, but the time invested has positive outcomes. Danasa recalled, “My bag of tricks continued to become fuller and as I had more things and more resources to pull from, that made it so much easier.” When she reminded herself how important learning the skill would be for her students, she would always feel reassured.

Summary. The maker educators understood that they had to improve their maker skills by learning new techniques for manipulating and building with a variety of materials. They all found that as they became more competent, they grew in confidence. The educators found conferences, workshops, and webinars where they could also build a network of like-minded teachers willing to share resources. The workshops were offered through formal and informal education settings. The teachers found that learning new maker content and skills was a beneficial byproduct of collaboration with colleagues and students. Other resources included online platforms, social media, and digital editions of magazines that the teachers often used to train themselves.

Collateral learning. According to Dewey’s definition of education, valuable skills and content knowledge are acquired as a result of collateral learning , which is composed of 166 byproducts attained during the process of education rather than parts that are inventoried along with the products of education. Dewey noted that the learning acquired by individuals collaterally was impactful on that individual’s attitudes and preferences (Dewey, 1938, p. 48).

The participants all acquired collateral understandings during their life experiences that contributed to their successes as maker educators. As educators, the participants also had different degrees of access to opportunities to acquire new skills and maker content. Educators gained specific skills and understandings as they encountered other ways of making–both formal and informal. Several participants learned that skills and knowledge they acquired in other situations were useful in their school maker spaces.

Additional school duties . Sometimes the opportunities came as challenges that the teachers’ colleagues were reluctant to tackle. Amanda, Danasa, and Emmett all accepted positions as their buildings as technology coordinators at various times during their teaching careers. When Emmett was a first-grade teacher, his principal found out that Emmett had some knowledge about computers. Emmett was then asked to set up the computer lab for the school on the stage of the auditorium. After he was able to string rows of Apple Macintoshes together, the principal began to send him to technology conferences where he learned more about the effective implementation and integration of technology in elementary classrooms. Amanda’s position as a technology coordinator for her school was the reason for her receiving a notification about a conference. There was a push to promote maker education in formal school settings. Amanda saw the maker mindset as justification for children to have access to more hands-on learning, develop critical thinking skills, and problem-solving activities. Because Amanda’s students had difficulties with rigorous higher order thinking, she believed that the new project-based curriculum could be applied in her classroom in ways that were fun, engaging and provide 167 challenges to develop the critical thinking skills. Although adding on the additional responsibilities of being a technology coordinator was time consuming and involved a lot of physical and mental energy for the teachers, the job also allowed the teachers access to the newest innovations in technology. Through their professional development opportunities, the teachers made connections with other teachers and technical experts from whom they could seek advice with troubleshooting. Danasa learned to maintain most of the technology in her building.

If she really needed help because she lacked time or the expertise, she was able to enlist help from a group of expert support personnel in the district tech office.

Previous and second jobs. The educators often had other jobs to help offset their student loans and other debts. Some jobs were related to education and others seemed less related to education. Emmett had acquired skills as a teenager working at his father’s T-shirt shop. He learned how organize the inventory and supplies in a retail store, operate a press for adhering decals to shirts, also acquired multitasking skills as he dealt with customers. Emmett’s experience at preschool where his mother taught also provided him with insights for working with young children. Penelope was a science tutor at the university level. She developed skills for explaining complex terms and concepts to struggling students. Demetrio worked during summers in residential home construction. He realized how much the skill set acquired from his construction job benefited his role as a maker educator since he has often used those skills in the school maker space. Demetrio credits his background.

This is not formal education, but I’ve rewired a couple of houses, so I have a construction

skillset. I can build a house from the ground up. I can rewire houses. I was just doing that

on the side as a teacher to supplement my income. 168

In addition to teaching, Raven also wrote curriculum for STEMscopes , a nationally recognized

K-12 digital STEM resource for schools in partnership with a Texas university. The skills and connections she acquired while researching and writing for the program helped her improve her skills designing crosscutting curriculum congruent to individual state standards. All of these educators learned from their other jobs and acquired direct and collateral insights, knowledge, and skills that enhanced their abilities as maker educators.

Hobbies and interests. Teachers’ hobbies and interests fueled their love of learning and added to their skill sets. All six maker educators were interested in STEM related hobbies including gardening, astronomy, nature, and engineering. By exploring their personal interests, the educators acquired more knowledge and skills that also contributed to their success as maker educators. The best example was Emmett’s interest in Lego bricks and robotics because of the

Lego philosophy adhering to “playful learning.” Emmett investigated how to become a better builder with Lego bricks. He learned about an elite program called Lego Master Educator that included signing a non-disclosure agreement. Emmett wrote an essay describing his level of personal and classroom interest in Lego, made a video and submitted his application. He was accepted into the program and became a beta tester for their new products that were in the final stages of design. Emmett was allowed to see pre-production prototypes of new Lego products.

He reflected on the application process and how it helped him with his classroom pedagogy.

The application process was fun and made me rethink a lot of things and focus on the

kind of teacher I am and at least be able to put that into words…I looked at the mission

on the Lego Foundation website. There was something about their mission as it touched

on their goals and purpose. It clicked with me and I thought that’s what I already

do…Now I have the proper vocabulary to speak to my administrator about this. 169

Emmet had learned the proper jargon to verbalize his philosophy of education in order to negotiate with his administrator as he was exploring a hobby. He added that there was a “wow factor” in gaining this knowledge.

Summary. The collateral knowledge that the teachers amassed included a range of skills and understandings that were beneficial in the maker spaces. Teachers found that collateral learning often happened in subtle and gradual ways. Often, acquisition of the skills took many iterations to achieve competency. Collateral learning frequently accompanied additional duties that opened doors for the educators. Other opportunities for learning came from previous jobs where the skills had been acquired and possibly forgotten, new jobs, and by pursuing hobbies and interests.

Theme summary. Although the participants had a range of access to experiential learning activities during their school years, they all agreed that implementing hands-on learning into the lessons was the most engaging and effective way to teach. However, the educators did not have the same level of freedom in their classrooms to teach in the manner they believed was best. Other factors were the amount of space and the budget for resources and materials that a teacher had. The educators also had to add to their repertoire of maker education ideas, skill sets, and lesson plans. They found a variety of professional development resources, including conferences, workshops, and webinars were important for building up one’s network of like- minded associates. Networking allowed for teacher collaborations and trading of ideas with mentors, each other, and on parity with their students. For self-teaching, the educators turned to printed matter, social media, and YouTube videos. Teachers also acquired collateral knowledge and skillsets by accepting additional duties at school, taking on non-school related jobs, and by exploring their hobbies and interests. 170

Support from Administrators, Colleagues, and Parents

Having support from administrator and colleagues helped the maker educators develop their proficiency. The effective implementation of maker education in formal school settings depended on collaboration and coordination between the maker educator and their administrators, colleagues, students, and their parents. Often, making connections depended on proper and adequate communication. In this theme, the significance of the administrators’ advocacy, the importance of understanding from colleagues, having parental support, and having adequate time to implement and operate the maker space will be explored.

Administrators’ buy-in. The six maker educators had varying degrees of freedom and budgets guiding their decisions in their school maker spaces. Much of the flexibility was based on the level of communication and trust between the principal and the maker educator. All the teachers had taught for at least 15 years. They had proven their competency as educators by raising test state scores. When asked about finding funds for equipment and supplies for a STEM lab, Raven’s principal told her, “Well, I’m the principal and everything is at my discretion.”

Hence, support from the principal for the teacher’s ideas and efforts to implement the maker curriculum was crucial for the teacher and the maker program.

Support of the maker education program. The success of implementation of a maker program depended on the consideration of the principal. Finding support for the program was not so difficult for Demetrio, Emmett, Penelope, and Danasa. Demetrio taught at a private school founded by educators who believed in experiential learning and project-based learning principles. Emmett’s maker space at his Title I magnet school had been relocated to the center of the school and had become a showpiece for visitors. 171

Principals were at times bound by instructions from their district administrators to be mindful in prepping for the state standardized tests. Because she taught in a high poverty school where reading and writing were the main focus, Amanda had to justify the cost and time of special projects to her administrators. In order to convince her principal and other administrators, she had to present proposals explaining the purpose of the project, the time needed, standards, goals, assessments, costs, and other details. Amanda recalled the difficulties.

I had to back [the proposal up, so] here are the learning standards I am working on with

these students. The defense is what they want…they want hands-on education, but they

want it to look somewhat academic. It’s hard to sell it, and always it’s about time.

Their students were already very far behind. Some had never seen their name written down on a piece of paper, so they entered Kindergarten not recognizing their name. Amanda explained that the teachers and students at her school were already behind starting on the first day of Kindergarten. They felt a lot of pressure to help the students catch up to their peers in other schools. So, for Amanda, unless a maker project could be justified with measurable outcomes, finding support could be difficult. In contrast, Danasa had a director in her district who was extremely supportive because she had experienced STEAM training. She was a HESA alum of Space Camp in Alabama. Danasa felt that the director had a perspective with different insights that allowed her to see more potential in the experiential maker curriculum. Danasa felt that having a supervisor understand her vision for the maker education program was inspiring.

She also felt that the director’s understanding of STEM content also helped get the green light for many proposals. Danasa’s director kept her maker space in mind whenever there were extra funds, even if the increments seemed insignificant. “Any little bit of money” that came available 172 went towards the purchase of Ozobots – the programmable orb shaped robots. The spherical robots were purchased one by one, here and there; now Danasa has a full set of Ozobots.

Support of the maker education teacher. Amanda, Penelope, Emmett, Raven, Danasa, and Demetrio at his previous school had all helped raise student scores on their state tests. All the teachers had gained a level of freedom for their STEM maker programs. Their dedication to their students helped them earn the trust and respect of their administrators, colleagues, students, and parents. Amanda, who had less flexibility than the other participants, felt she had more freedom than the other teachers in her building. She shared that if she really needed a resource or a teaching tool, her principal would try to get it or reach out to someone in the community to find it for her. Amanda also realized that she was “limited by [an additional] 30 or 40 teachers and that everyone wanted things. There were limitations, but we did try.”

Administrators also helped their teachers by searching for grant opportunities specifically to fund training for the maker educators. Amanda received emails from different departments from her school corporation with many from her principal to check a resource for applicability in

Amanda’s classroom or school. Conferences and workshops are not easily funded since they require registration fees, and the costs of travel, food, and lodging. For schools in isolated areas, some administrators have funded the teachers’ membership in professional organizations, such as

NSTA and ISTE, where networks and resources can be found.

Finding space and time. Once administrators approved the implementation of maker education in their school’s classrooms, they had the authority to decide where a maker space would be located in a school, how the classroom would be outfitted, and when the classes would be held. Once a teacher gained permission, the principals were needed for help with the setup and scheduling. Amanda appreciated how her principal helped by “hunting down old shelves that 173 had been placed in storage” because having adequate shelf space was important for a maker space. She admitted that her classroom was “not pretty. It’s not Pinterest, but it works.” At her first school, Danasa started out by pushing a cart around from room to room. Then she was transferred to a school where she got her own classroom. Danasa worked within the parameters of the classroom for the first 2 years. But as she added more activities and goals to her curriculum, it became apparent to the principal that the maker lab needed more space. Danasa now feels that the program is being taken much more seriously, because the school converted the former library into the STEM maker lab during their last renovation when the new library was built. The principal also found funds that were “scraped together” to purchase new maker lab furniture. Danasa’s school eventually hired a second teacher to help with some of her heavier class load.

Penelope and Raven both had STEM labs that integrated the maker curriculum. Both of their schools were located in a southern region with mild winters, so they were able to expand their classrooms by adding year-round garden teaching areas. Being able to conduct some of their curriculum outside meant that there was more room inside for the hands-on experiential maker projects. Emmett’s classroom was relocated during his school’s most recent renovation.

Before, his classroom was across from the gym so the noise level from his classroom would not disturb the more academic classes. However, after Emmett’s classes demonstrated high student engagement and enthusiasm, his classroom became a showpiece. Furniture and new high-tech equipment were purchased for his new classroom.

Summary. Because the principal and other administrators make the final school decisions, it was important to have their support for the effective implementation of a maker program. For some schools serving low-income neighborhoods, the administrators felt the need 174 to push their teachers and students to raise scores on state standardized tests because of their connection to the schools accreditation and funding. Some administrators understood the value of exposing their students to experiential activities through make education, but others still were not willing to take the risks. Administrators who trusted the experiential pedagogy to teach their students authentically would provide support to the program and to the maker educations in the school maker labs. These principals found the funding to train and support the teachers.

Additional support and finding time . In addition to considerations from the administrators for successful implementation of a maker space, the maker teachers also needed the support and understanding of their colleagues, school staff, and the parents. Collaborations with colleagues enhanced the planning of the curricula. Having support of school staff and parents was helpful in securing materials for making, particularly recyclables. Having the time and cooperation of students to keep the room maintained was another important factor. Having a school culture behind the implementation of the maker space enhanced the morale of the teachers and students.

Colleagues and staff. All the participants felt that support and encouragement from colleagues and staff were important to the effective operation of the maker program. Amanda explained how in seeking maker supplies and materials, she did not need to spend much time.

She kept some tools and materials at her own house. Amanda believed that teachers and other school staff are also very supportive about sharing. She also praised the cafeteria manager and workers for their help, “If you tell them you need boxes, you’ll have 50 boxes the next day.”

Penelope created a team with her grade-level colleagues to have all of the thematic units of the different content areas in sync with each other. The classes would then reinforce each other and help students see the crosscutting main ideas. Danasa felt that all the colleagues in her 175 building were behind the program and appreciative of her work. She made sure that whenever she was fortunate to receive new resources, she offered to share with the rest of the faculty.

Danasa recalled, “Because of the sharing opportunity, the teachers I work with immediately have been very supportive.” Emmett said that the faculty at his school had to focus on the reading, writing, and math so much, that they were grateful that he was there to provide the experiential maker activities to their students.

Parental support of the program. Because the parents at her Title I school needed to focus primarily on “getting food on the table,” Amanda appreciated the few parents who were reliable for contributing what they could:

I always know I have a couple of parents that are my pack rats who can help me out with

some things. A lot of teachers at my school are very supportive. You just put an email out

to the whole school, “Hey, I’m looking for XYZ,” and in 30 minutes, you’ll get another

email back that says, “Okay, I’ve got it.”

Because so many of the parents at Amanda’s school came from poverty, the support from parents for the experiential maker program was “hit or miss.” Danasa also felt fortunate to have supportive parents who helped collect cardboard, paper towel rolls, plastic bottles, and other common household items that could be used in the maker classroom. Their help saved a lot of time for her.

Raven’s support from parents was also hit or miss. Her favorite example of success was a student who fell in love with science after she attended a summer camp where Raven taught. The student received a full scholarship from a large urban public university to major in biology.

When Raven was invited to attend a space shuttle launch at Kennedy Space Center, the student’s parents covered Raven’s expenses. The worst cases were when parents thought she was too strict 176 or expected too much from their children. Raven stated simply, “Most of the parents have liked me, most of the parents, not all of them.

Penelope and Emmett also taught at Title I schools where parents were more concerned about getting food on their tables and less concerned about their child’s school curricula.

Demetrio received positive feedback from parents for his boarding school’s culture, which placed responsibility on the students for cleaning up their learning and living spaces.

Community support for maker education. Depending on local and regional situations, the educators were able to find assistance and donations from their area nonprofit organizations, businesses, and industries. Amanda was able to find funding for many of her projects through her local Public Education Foundation (PEF). She received so many grants from the PEF that she offered to mentor her colleagues as they developed ideas and applied for their own grants. In

Danasa’s search for programs, she discovered that a regional university had just received a

$400,000 grant to work with local businesses to develop a STEAM certification for educators.

The program was also pushing to streamline the maker education curriculum to provide access to information for educators who could not get into the certification program. Emmett found the local teacher credit union had substantial grants for educators. Penelope was able to use her accomplishments to earn even more grants and awards, notably the H-E-B awards to educators.

All the educators found that as they won more awards, it was easier to apply and win more awards.

Summary. All the teachers understood that their successes hinged upon the support, understanding, and contributions of many other people and groups. Having the understanding and appreciation of colleagues and staff at their schools made their daily routines easier.

Gathering simple recyclable materials and other supplies for classroom making was much easier 177 whenever staff and parents contributed. As a teacher’s reputation grew, their recommendations and support from others helped them earn awards and grant funding for their programs. Building a collaborative culture in their school made helped ensure the effectiveness of their STEM maker programs.

Finding the time. Every participant shared that their greatest hurdle was not having enough time. They needed time to research new ideas and techniques. The educators all needed enough time to practice new skills through iterations until they gained competency. Because the process of making needs space to build and storage, the maker classrooms needed constant maintenance. The participants shared their insights and advice as they continued their ongoing struggles.

Time to research. When asked about how much time they spent on finding new resources and ideas, several teachers brought up multitasking. Penelope, Danasa, and Raven were all avid learners and passionate about finding new resources. If Penelope received an email about a new technique and it seemed interesting, she would take an hour and begin to research the topic immediately. Another time, she might be watching a movie and checking her social media. If anything caught her interest, Penelope would begin looking up information in the topic as she was watching a movie. Danasa was working on her doctoral degree in educational technology leadership. In addition to taking two classes per semester during the school year and three classes in the summer, Danasa attended Arduino workshops on Saturdays. She also used her iPhone to take photos or videos of interesting ideas that she could look up later and perhaps apply to her classroom. Raven kept up with the latest STEM techniques by attending conferences and workshops, and looking up ideas online and on social media, including Facebook, This Week in

Science, STATweb, her state science teachers association, and the STEMscopes. Demetrio spent 178 time reading magazines online and searching YouTube videos. Emmett mentioned that he was in a phase where he relied on social media:

I’m heavy into Twitter, social media and following different companies in different

groups. I’m on a number of newsletters for various organizations. Although I may not be

a member, I’m still on their newsletter [mailing list.] And I take the time to [browse]. I

can do this. or there’s a workshop on this [topic] online. Let me go ahead and at least sign

up for it, and then I can watch it…later on.

Amanda admitted that she did not spend enough personal time searching for new techniques.

Time was her greatest hurdle, so she found that during summers she as more able and willing to spend her own time acquiring new skills .

Time to learn. The six teachers admitted that they had little time to practice newly acquired skills. For Amanda, practicing a new skill or technique two or three times was enough to give her the confidence to teach her students. She explained. “When we started making stop motion videos…I would do the work a couple of times. Two or three times, I’d work with the app just to make sure I knew how to explain it if there were questions.” Two or three times was the norm for the other teachers who also struggled with time constraints. Danasa, Demetrio,

Raven, Emmett, and Penelope all used YouTube videos for training themselves. They stopped the videos if they needed more time to understand a step. Then they resumed when they were caught up. YouTube videos worked well for both quick and slower learners.

Time to clean. From experience, the six maker educators knew that a maker space could become messy and unsafe if not maintained and organized properly. This aspect of maker education easily wore the teachers down early in the implementation process. Raven spent one of her five planning periods per week just for pulling materials; she spent another 2 hours per week 179 in addition to her planning periods on maintaining her classroom after school. For Danasa, the constant clean-up between classes was a difficult grind. There was a lot of work setting activities up and a lot of work cleaning up. The preparation of materials took time as well. She explained,

“Even though the students and families are bringing in a lot of the materials as donations, [like] silly bottle caps and things like that, you still have to organize it. You have to wash it sometimes.

You have to make sure things are ready.”

Demetrio shared that the students at his boarding school helped clean up their maker space:

At our school, we don’t have janitors; the students clean the school which helps [teach

them] leadership. If you don’t know how to sweep up a room and tidy up a place, you’re

not going to be very employable. And parents love that because when these kids go back

home, they’re much more willing to work to fix up their house…things like that.

Amanda’s students were also involved in the organization and clean-up of their classroom. She came up with the “pack, stack, and plug” method for the end of each school day.

My kids love that because I think it’s important for them to feel like it’s their classroom,

so they’re in charge of their tables. They have crates that they keep their materials in. The

last couple of minutes every day before we start packing up, we go through and clean up

a little bit and then we do a thing called pack, stack, and plug. You pack up your

materials: you stack your chair; you plug in your iPad.

Amanda also had a rule that if she found anything on the ground, then the students would have 1 minute taken away from a preferred activity time. Whenever she reminded her students, her classroom became “spic and span.” 180

Summary. All the teachers stated that their greatest hurdle as maker educators was the lack of time. As maker educators, they needed more time to find resources, new tools, and new ideas for projects that could be used in classroom settings. They also all needed more time to practice on their new skills or to become familiar enough with skills to transfer that knowledge to their students. The six participants also shared that they needed more time to prepare their classrooms and organize their tools and supplies. The more resourceful teachers figured out ways to multitask. Demetrio and Amanda learned to enlist the help of the students to maintain order in their classroom. Demetrio and Amanda also felt less pressure to know everything since they admitted to their students that they were also learning along with their students on parity.

Theme summary. For a teacher to successfully implement a maker space in a formal school setting, the support of many individuals and groups is needed. The educator needs to have the endorsement and input of the principal and other administrators. The approval, time, and encouragement of colleagues, school staff, and parents along with their help providing materials, feedback, and moral support is invaluable. The maker educators need adequate funding for tools and supplies. All the participants agreed that having enough time to set up, take down, organize, and clean the maker space was important. Time was also needed to practice the skills enough times to gain competency – well enough to teach the students.

Teacher Attributes

The six maker educators took different paths to become effective and proficient maker educators. Despite the contrasts in their backgrounds and directions of their journeys, many similarities were notable. Common personal traits and mindsets emerged from the interviews. Of particular note were the personal characteristics of the participants, their sense of care and 181 connectedness to their students, and their willingness to advise others who were willing to take on the challenge of becoming a maker educator.

Personal characteristics. The personalities of the teachers developed in time and were an amalgam of their family backgrounds, education, and exposure. Because maker education in the formal school setting was a new phenomenon, the educators had to learn, on their own, how and where to find the information to establish their maker spaces and curricula. When asked what they considered to be their greatest strengths as maker educators, the teachers noted their determination, their work ethic, and their flexibility. They also noted that their first priority – more important than the transfer of content knowledge—was being a teacher with focus on the well-being of their students. Moreover, the educators all made important connections with students and other educators. In some cases, the connections were as mentor and mentee, in some cases with teacher and student as co-learners in parity.

Determination. All the educators, particularly Raven, Penelope, Demetrio, and Amanda, met with different types of struggles and intersectionalities of struggles in their life experiences.

All four of these participants had to overcome their hurdles with learning differences. Raven had dyscalculia; Penelope and Amanda had ADD and ADHD; Demetrio struggled with math until he learned study techniques. These participants also had to overcome issues such as race, poverty, and deficient schools. As children of working-class parents, they had to fend for themselves after school each day and were responsible for getting their homework done and dinner ready on their own. Amanda described a typical evening taking care of her sister and herself:

So, my Mom was working and going to night school. It was my job to get my sister off

the bus. I was a latchkey kid…make sure we did our homework together, make sure that I 182

started some supper. Then my Mom would come home exhausted. So [my motivation]

had to be internal or it didn’t happen.

Raven attributed her resilience to her internal sense of determination as well: “No matter how much I complain about something, no matter how much I whine about something, I absolutely never give up. I don’t. I don’t.” The teachers’ qualities of determination, tenacity, and resilience developed from their willingness and ability to meet and address their difficulties in life.

Strong work ethic. The educators spent long hours at their schools setting up their classrooms. Emmett seemed to spend the most amount of time since he was consistently the first teacher to arrive in the morning and the last to leave in the evenings. He described his routine:

On most days, the teachers walk into the building, my lights are on, and I’m in my room.

They leave the building; my lights are on and I’m in my room. So I get there about 6 or

6:30, and I leave about 5:30 or 6 o’clock. So, they see that I’m putting in a lot and I’m

getting a decent return.

Danasa, Amanda, Penelope, and Raven all gave examples of how they had to sort and clean materials for their maker spaces and organize the tools. Raven devoted a specific amount of time to pulling materials out and returning other materials to storage to prevent disorganization of the lab space. Amanda and Demetrio were able to enlist the help of students with the cleanup, but it still required time and oversight.

Several of the maker educators spent time on extracurricular activities. For example,

Emmett set up his entire district’s VEX Robotics League at the elementary school level. He organized the meetings for the teachers and arranged the matches for two or three teams from every school in his district. The competitions grew from 22 to 33 teams, with the two top teams receiving bids to go on the state tournament. The maker educators also mentored students for 183 science fairs, coached academic super bowls, and advised students for STEM talent search competitions.

Flexibility. Being adaptable was the attribute mentioned most often by the maker educators who talked about their own qualities. When asked which quality about themselves was their greatest strength, Penelope, Emmett, Danasa all brought up their adaptability or flexibility.

For Emmett, the need to be flexible might come from an administrator. He explained how his principal could call him early in the morning and say, “We need you to do this.” Emmett was willing to make time to do it and he was able to figure out how to do it.

Penelope’s adaptability focused on her students’ needs. She shared about the student who needed some extra help but couldn’t come to her classroom after school. They told her, “It’s because I can’t. I have to take care of my brother.” Penelope advised the student to bring their brother along. Sometimes students were not able to attend a tutoring session after school because they were needed at home. Penelope would tell the students to come early the next morning for additional help. She elaborated:

It was mostly adapting to the different groups that we had, the different students, things

like that…One time we would group them together. Sometimes we would keep them

separate. And my content teacher…constantly in the morning, we would meet at his

door…[Why] do you think they did this? How about this? Let’s just throw what we were

going to do out today because they need an extra day of this.

Penelope and the content teacher were able to modify their plans for the day to accommodate their students. They saw the need to add more time and were willing.

Danasa also valued flexibility since it helped her deal with the unpredictable events that often occurred. She shared her thoughts: 184

Sometimes things happen and you can’t do what’s planned. I think flexibility and

creativity on the spot have been two attributes that I would be dead in the water

without…Something changes, and I can just think for a few minutes on my feet. I can

come up with a whole new lesson…and just get it out quickly, so our 40 minutes aren’t

wasted.

She went on to explain how sometimes a neighboring classroom might be taking a high-stakes test that needed her classroom to be quiet or to do alternative activities. Sometimes various needs in the building might affect half a day of planned lessons. Other times, one or more robots might need their firmware updated, so Danasa had to think quickly to avoid wasting a class period.

Summary. As the maker educators shared their stories, several distinct qualities of the educators emerged. Having great determination, a strong work ethic, and the willingness and understanding to be flexible were the assets that the educators valued most for enhancing their abilities to be effective maker educators. These personal qualities developed as the educators experienced and learned to address their own obstacles in life. Their commitment, persistence, and willingness to plan and work hard are the factors that led to their achievement of their goals.

Connections with students. The six participants took time to build strong teacher– student relationships. Some students struggled with learning due to a variety of reasons. The teachers were attentive and cared enough to help the students address their issues. They demonstrated to their students that they cared. The educators were also willing to make changes to their own plans in order to accommodate the students. The maker educators placed emphasis towards preparing the students for their futures. The students were reminded by the teachers and understood that their learning was preparing them for life. 185

Care for students. All six participants emphasized caring for their students and sometimes the students’ families as well. The two best examples were Penelope and Amanda.

Penelope explained the great extent to which she and her colleagues went to help their students.

Each morning, Amanda and her colleagues met with their principal where they would be informed about the status of their students and families. Important information shared among the teachers might include which students’ homes had their water or other utilities cut off, or families had been evicted, and even which student’s parents had been arrested. The teachers could then be mindful and sensitive to students if they seemed agitated, tired, or distracted during class. Penelope shared how her team of teachers went to extra lengths to help their students:

We do try and we do house visits. A lot of times, we try to go to the house, or we stay

after hours if there’s a kid who doesn’t have [a place to study]. We’ve even offered, okay,

there’s two of us. We’re going to take them and drive them home just so that they can

stay for tutoring. Sometimes we’ll tutor with their whole family because the oldest ones

are in charge of taking care of the little ones most of the times here in these schools.

So, when Penelope and her colleague finished tutoring their own four to six students, the younger siblings also receive tutoring.

Amanda also visited students’ homes since sometimes there were no other ways to contact the person responsible for her student. She explained:

I’ve been in contact with all of the families so far at least once if not twice. Sometimes, I

have to track down great aunt so-and so. And she’s like, “Oh yeah, mom doesn’t have

any minutes [left] on her phone. I’ll try to drop her a note or go bang on her window. You

know, something to let her know. 186

Sometime Amanda’s passion for helping her students was very painful and caused heartaches.

She shared:

There are days I just come home and sob because I can’t change the circumstances that

[the] student is in, or there are times I have to make that phone call to social

services…and those are rough days…the ones I hate to call about are the water’s been

turned off for 2 weeks because I don’t think poverty’s neglect necessarily, but [it is

required by the state] to report it.

Amanda took extra time to connect with students at the beginning of each school year because she knew that her students could sense whether or not a teacher cared about them. She took time to tell her students about herself, her pets, her likes, and dislikes. She asked her students about their families, pets, and hobbies. As a result, Amanda’s students did not have outbursts as frequently as the other teachers in her building.

Sometimes, simply talking to students about topics that were not related to school was enough to show the teacher cared. Emmett expressed interest by asking students how they were doing. If they said they were fine and were playing a video game, he then asked them, “What level are you on? What have you learned about the game so far?” Emmett’s care for his students came through in his follow-up questions, in which he exhibited an interest in his students’ interests. Raven’s students could tell she cared because her passion showed through her teaching.

She shared an example of how she was having a very bad day with a painful sinus headache. But once Raven began teaching, the headache seemed to disappear. Twenty minutes later, a student asked her, “What happened to your headache?” Her reply was, “The headache’s gone…because I got excited when I started teaching.” Penelope believed that knowing an educator cared influenced the student in a certain way. She added, “It’s not just about getting the A…they care 187 about you as a person and how you learn.” Teachers who cared about how their students were able to process thoughts and ideas were rare.

Be willing to meet the students’ needs . Sometimes, the students’ struggles were about getting assessed properly for accommodations. Penelope shared that they never lost a student by saying that they couldn’t be helped, but some students just did not have the capabilities even though they worked very hard. So, Penelope and her colleagues would reward students for their growth. Some students needed medications for focus but were not provided the help. Penelope recalled a student who could not read until accommodations were made by doing all the paperwork. The student’s scores went from an 18 to a 98 on the state test.

Demetrio believed every student was capable of learning. For his students who struggled, he asked, “Why is it that a student can’t learn? What gets in their way? What keeps them from learning [more quickly?]” Demetrio set out to find the causes of his students’ struggles. Then he found ways to help his students overcome their struggles. He explained, “Just seeing that those barriers that they’re hitting can be removed, that’s been really valuable.” Emmett found that providing individual attention was a good way to reach students who were struggling and disturbing other students. He shared:

When I first introduced computer aided design (CAD) to our sixth graders 3-4 years

ago—now we brought CAD all the way down to third grade—some kids were having

problems. Some kids were just being kids, but the whole reason was they just didn’t

understand what we were doing. Once I sat back and I worked one-to-one [with] them

while everyone else was working…. I just pulled them apart and once they got it, that

light bulb turned on and you could tell…they got it. They were the kids who were

teaching everybody else how to do it after that. 188

Some teachers made modifications and spent extra time after school to help their students. Raven shared how she modified the lessons for one of her classes that had a high enrollment of special education students. Raven presented the content at a slower pace and added tutorials and help sessions after school. Providing a classroom that was a nurturing environment was how Amanda believed she best accommodated her students. She made a big deal out of small gains with praise and encouragement since sometimes, the small gains were the only ones her students received.

Amanda elaborated:

Just make a supportive classroom. When a kid gets up that normally wouldn’t get up, my

[other students] will clap…just [showing] their support. We talk about [how] the world’s

hard [and mean] outside that door [so] inside the door, we’re going to support each other.

Amanda felt that her classroom was like a family.

Prepare students for the future. The proficient maker educators kept their students’ futures in mind as they selected topics that students could find relatable. The design of the projects and thematic units needed to teach not only content, but important 21 st century skills. All the educators understood that they had the advantage of the STEAM content to engage and excite their students. Amanda’s students were younger, so her preparation focus was on preparing her students to perform well at the nest level – their immediate future. Amanda knew that education was key for her students’ success.

I would say that any parent I talk to says that they want their child to succeed in school.

They aren’t necessarily able to figure out how that’s going to look or if they’ll be able to

afford college…. It’s the day-to-day, getting homework done, asking your kid what

happened at school, that’s a struggle for a lot of families, because again, priority one is

food on the table. 189

Penelope’s goal was to have her students understand that what they learned in class was important for solving real-world problems. The underwater rovers, the robots, the monarch garden and pond, and the vegetable garden were all a part of Penelope’s STEAM maker curricula so her students could make the connections to real world problems. Danasa wondered how many of her students still did not make the connection between what they learned in school and what they would need to know to be hired in their future. They had not realized that they might need college or trade school. She speculated:

If they don’t have that future goal or maybe they just don’t have a goal-oriented

personality, they’re just sitting there. Everything’s going right over their head because

they’re not interested…Whatever the child’s choice is after high school, these are

developed skills that they’re going to need to have…to work with other people, to have

problem solving skills, creativity, and curiosity…If they don’t have those pillars of 21 st

century learning, they’re dead in the water regardless of where they go.

Demetrio used his own interests in the developments of SpaceX to design projects for his students to research. He had toured SpaceX several times and was intrigued by 3D printers and their importance to future NASA Mars missions. Demetrio explained, “We’re preparing students for jobs that haven’t even been invented yet, so we want them to be able to research something and then be able to do it.”

Summary. In making connection with their students, the maker educators took extra time to show their students that they cared not only about their academic progress. The teachers showed their students that they were cared for as individuals. Some of the maker educators made house calls to check on their students. Some tutored their students and their siblings before or after school. The teachers also made accommodations to help their students learn the content and 190 skills. For struggling students, teachers slowed down the delivery of lessons, provided tutorials, and also taught the students individually. The maker educators also emphasized preparing their students with the skill sets to meet the future demands of employers.

Suggestions for novice educators. A final common attribute among these maker educators was their willingness to offer advice to others who want to follow the same path. Key advice they offered included finding your passion, starting simple, and being a lifelong learner.

The best maker educators shared their wealth of knowledge freely with others. The focus was not on themselves but on the programs and opportunities for their students.

Find your passion. Penelope, Danasa, Raven, Emmett, and Amanda advised teachers to follow what they love. Penelope shared that she was already living her dream. Danasa’s passion for music performance and her love of teaching led to her becoming a maker educator. Raven’s advice was based on the same guiding words once given to her by a mentor:

I’d tell them to find their passion…Find the thing that makes you very, very happy. If you

want to be a teacher, find the subject that makes you very happy, the subject that you are

constantly wanting to learn something about…the thing that you want to learn for the rest

of your life.

Emmett was offered his position after another teacher resigned. He was given 24 hours to decide about accepting the offer. Emmett’s wife and closest friends all recognized that his bumpy road from being a homeroom teacher to a specialty teacher and then to being technology support for the other teachers led back to the maker educator position where he could be with students again—where he would be the happiest. Emmett told his principal that he wanted to teach for another 10 years. Amanda, who grew up in poverty, was following her passion to work with 191 children in poverty. It was her passion that was the catalyst for becoming a maker educator.

Amanda shared:

Well, the kids are number one for me. It’s why I stay and I think the reason I started

doing STEAM and trying to have them make the space, is I saw a gap where our kids

weren’t getting necessarily these types of experiences, so I was like, I don’t know what

I’m doing, I’m not the math and science person, but something’s better than nothing.

That’s what started me on my journey.

When asked if she would eventually want to become an administrator or enter higher education,

Amanda replied, “No, I want to be in the trenches every day.” She was already where she wanted to be.

Start simple. All six teachers agreed that starting simply without the intimidation factor of expensive equipment such as 3D printers and laser cutters would be the best way for the teacher and the students to explore making experientially. Amanda reassured novice teachers,

“It’s okay to start small. It’s okay not to know what you’re doing. You just have to jump in and try it. It can be very overwhelming.” Her other suggestion for teachers who needed help taking the initial plunge was, “Start with the Cardboard Challenge and work your way up.”

Demetrio’s advice, similar to Amanda’s, was for new teachers to remember that the first projects do not need to be complicated. He encouraged novice teachers to get their students busy by starting out with cardboard and hot glue guns in order to gain skills:

I think sometimes administrators feel like we need these $3,000 robotics kits. Yes, that

would be great, and you can work towards that, but just doing things will get a person

there…. If you just keep at it, you’ll make breakthroughs. 192

Emmett advised novice teachers to aim for using fewer consumables, more recyclables, and more reusable materials. Like Demetrio, he also advocated for the use of cardboard, “When it comes to cardboard, I open up a box, I fold it up and put it in the maker space.” He added:

Build things out of cardboard…there’s Makedo which makes cardboard screws and

screws that you can [use to ] screw things together…If you can get some, that’s one way,

if not, [then] glue and binder clips, that kind of thing. Cardboard, scissors…various ways

to cut things. The great thing about having a maker space is, it doesn’t have to be fancy.

It doesn’t matter what’s in the maker space as much as what you do in the maker space.

Penelope also stressed the importance of organization. Keeping the materials simple at the beginning of building a maker space helped with the upkeep. Penelope also suggested communicating with the other teachers to see what make projects or activities would reinforce or enrich the content or goals in the other subject areas. She added that if a project had not already been designed, then the opportunity was there to plan one.

Lifelong learners. All of the educators advised new teachers who embarked on the maker educator journey to be prepared for lifelong learning. Danasa and Demetrio both added advice to keep pace with new developments. Danasa emphasized the importance of staying current:

Always keep learning. Keep looking for opportunities to learn new things. There’s so

much changing all the time, that as soon as you learn it, it’s already old news and

everyone’s already done it. It’s great to recycle old stuff, but always find new things to

add.

Demetrio understood from his own experiences how knowing how one learns best can affect a person’s prospects: 193

Learn everything. Learn how to study is your best bet. I’m constantly learning things

now. As things evolve, we’re going to do our Arduinos, so we need to understand

electronics. The content that I’m doing now with students was not around when I was a

student. The most important thing that they can do is learn how to be a good student and

to value knowledge.

Learning new things was what Emmett enjoyed and loved most about being a maker educator.

He believed he was challenging himself to a new level of unfamiliarity. He explained, “Every day I come to school, I’m challenging myself with something that I may not be comfortable with.” He thrived on discomfort. Penelope advised teachers to keep learning, ask other teachers for advice and help, and to read up on the latest new techniques. Penelope also strongly suggested that teachers should consider types of learning not directly related to their teaching or curricula in order to freshen and broaden their perspectives.

Summary. All the educators believed that novice educators should begin by identifying their own interests and passions in life. Being able to find relevance and purpose in preparing students for life is an important aspect of teaching. Because maker education has so many applications, the new teachers can let their personal interests guide their initial directions in learning skills and techniques. The experienced maker educators advised new teachers to have reasonable expectations of themselves as they embarked on their learning journeys to become proficient. No one should expect to be perfect from the beginning. All of the teachers said, “Start simple.” Lifelong learning was also an important attribute of each teacher because it kept their skills, pedagogy, and curricula relevant.

Summary of theme. The attributes of the six proficient maker educators emerged from their narratives as they related their backgrounds, life experiences, and transformation from 194 novice to make educators. The teachers had common attributes that contributed to their effectiveness as maker educators. Predominant personal characteristics of the successful educators were their determination in overcoming hurdles, their strong work ethic, and their flexibility and adaptability to changes and demands in life. The six participants had developed strong connection to their students that was demonstrated in their care and concern for the students’ wellbeing. The maker educators were willing and creative in finding ways to address the range of needs of their students. Lastly, the proficient maker educators were inclined to help others by sharing their knowledge. These educators made suggestions for novice make educators setting out on their experiential learning journeys – to find and follow their passion, to start simple, and to keep learning.

Conclusion

This chapter presented the narratives of six proficient maker educators. Several themes that contributed to the eventual successes of the teachers emerged from their stories. Each theme was developed by comparing and contrasting the data between the participants. The four dominant themes were the teacher’s backgrounds, the experiential development of their maker skills, their support from administrators and colleagues, and lastly, their attributes. The teachers’ backgrounds impacted the educators’ outlooks and attitudes. Through their personal experiential development of their maker skills, the teachers were able to learn how the maker mindset permeated their teaching pedagogy and curricula. The teachers attributed much of their success to support and trust from administrators and colleagues. Having enough time to explore and experiment was also important for the teachers to learn new skills, but because of the newness of the resources and technology, several educators shared that they learned to be comfortable learning along with their students. The last theme was the teacher attributes, which included 195 characteristics of the teachers, their connectedness to their students, and their suggestions for novice educators. From these discussions, several findings were identified:

• The family backgrounds of maker educators impacted their choices and their ability to

acquire the relevant skills.

• Successful maker educators needed time to experientially acquire the skills and

understandings they needed to gain competency.

• The effectiveness of maker educators depended on the support of their administrators.

• Proficient maker educators had specific attributes that reinforced their skills.

These findings will be discussed in the next chapter.

196

Chapter 5: Summary, Findings, and Recommendations

In preparation for the demands of the 21 st century, educators have sought curricula and methods to interest students in the STEM fields (Gerstein, 2016; Martin, 2015). Global demand for scientists, engineers, and programmers ensures employability for graduates trained in these specialties. Some schools have opted to establish maker labs or innovation labs to teach coding and to train their students how to use 3D printers, laser cutters, and robots. Because the implementation of maker education as a curriculum in formal K–12 settings is a new phenomenon, there is still not enough information about how maker educators can best acquire the maker skills and content knowledge they need to perform at a proficient level of competency.

Summary of Study

The study introduced maker education as an almost decade-old development that originated in a global grassroots DIY movement to promote creativity and sustainability

(Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). Because the introduction of maker education in the formal school setting is recent, very little quantitative or qualitative research on the effectiveness of maker education has been done (Chu et al., 2017; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). Novice educators have struggled to acquire the skills, understandings, and content competency they needed to effectively implement maker education in their school maker spaces. Thus, expensive high-tech tools for making remain unused in many maker spaces (Chu, Angello, Saenz, & Quek, 2017;

Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Hsu, Baldwin, & Ching, 2017). In order to provide information to preservice teachers, professional development providers, administrators, and novice maker educators, this qualitative study was proposed in order to learn how successful maker teachers who had established effective maker spaces and developed engaging maker programs acquired the skills and content knowledge to become proficient maker educators. The narrative inquiry 197 methodology was used in order to extract robust data from the life stories of six maker educators as they journeyed to becoming proficient maker educators.

The literature review for the study focused on three strands that explored different aspects of maker education. The first strand examined the connections between maker education in formal school settings and the experiential education philosophy of John Dewey and why maker education has become a way for schools to teach more engaging and relevant skills and content.

The second strand presented the historical timeline of STEM education in the United States to better understand how the notion of adding maker education in academic settings developed. The third strand of the literature reviewed the maker space information available in order to set some guidelines for other innovators seeking to establish a maker space and program in their school.

However, because the initial maker educators came to their positions with such a great range of content knowledge and skills, it was difficult to understand where to begin to examine the factors guiding and motivating these teachers to become maker educators. Using Kolb’s theory of experiential learning as a lens, this study sought to answer the following research questions using interview data from six educators in private and public K–12 school settings in the United States: (a) What influences and events in the life stories of teachers channeled them to become maker educators? and (b) What were the obstacles and opportunities that maker educators encountered during their transformation from novice to proficient levels of expertise?

As their stories were compared and contrasted, the narratives of the six participants yielded insights about establishing maker spaces in their settings. Several themes emerged, from which four findings were developed. This chapter presents and discusses those findings that may be useful to educators, teacher educators, administrators, and other stakeholders. 198

Recommendations are made for future research and practice for scholars, administrators, and maker educators in regard to educative making in formal K–12 school settings.

Summary of Findings

The following findings emerged from the themes discussed in the previous chapter:

• The family backgrounds of maker educators impacted their choices and their ability to

acquire the relevant skills.

• Successful maker educators needed time to experientially acquire the skills and

understandings they needed to gain competency.

• The effectiveness of maker educators depended on the support of their administrators.

• Proficient maker educators had specific attributes that reinforced their skills.

This section discusses how these findings are aligned with the research framework and the literature, and how they answer the research questions.

Family Backgrounds Impact Abilities of Maker Educators

The first finding is that the family background of maker educators impacted their choices and their ability to acquire the relevant skills to become maker educators. The participants’ backgrounds affected their lives in several ways. The family structure of an individual determined the likelihood of their exposure to opportunities to learn and acquire skills on their own. At times, the opportunities to learn came out of necessity in order for the participant’s family to function smoothly. How the participants overcame their hurdles in their childhood laid the foundation for their future approaches to meeting new challenges both in the make spaces and in their lives.

This finding is congruent with John Dewey’s (1938) reasoning that a person’s education is defined not by the hours spent in formal schooling, but that an individual’s education 199 encompasses the lifelong process of learning driven by a person’s internal motivation and natural curiosity. Dewey believed that the most effective learning for people, whether as children or adults, occurred when the experiences were authentic efforts to explore and navigate through their own surroundings, followed by reflection on the new understandings gained from the experiences. The participants’ learning opportunities that occurred early in life because of their family backgrounds influenced their foundational understandings. These understandings eventually impacted the participants’ attitudes, attributes, and thought processes. These transformations demonstrate how experiential learning can occur even without the supervision or guidance of a teacher, as long as the learner is exploring, observing, or participating in an event

(Beard, 2018). Furthermore, the knowledge gained through each new experience was accumulated to the learner’s total attained knowledge to which additional experiences and problems would be presented. Learning continues in a progressive spiral (Dewey, 1938).

Using Kolb’s learning cycle to examine the comprehensive learning process of the maker educators also requires consideration of the maker educators’ backgrounds. Kolb’s definition of learning was based on a 4-stage cyclical process where the new knowledge acquired transforms the learner. In addition, each stage of Kolb’s learning cycle is foundational for the stages that occur afterwards (Rumson, 2018). As the participants learned to overcome their hurdles, they acquired foundational understandings to help navigate their surroundings. Kolb’s experiential learning theory clarifies how the maker educators as learners came to understand what they knew and be able to use what they knew to solve problems (Long and Gummelt, 2019). For these maker educators, learning how to apply their knowledge was the step beyond merely acquiring knowledge. The first finding addresses the first research question regarding the origination of maker educators. The backgrounds of the participants led them to be exposed to situations in 200 which they could learn experientially and develop skills that would impact their demeanors and thought processes. These transformations accumulated to channel the participants to their career and life paths.

Maker Educators Need Time to Acquire Skills

The second finding is that a successful maker educator needed time to experientially acquire the skills and understandings they needed to gain competency. When the teachers were asked about the greatest obstacle to becoming a proficient maker educator, all responded that they needed more time. Sometimes the maker educators needed time to attend training or workshops to learn about new maker techniques or applications. More frequently, the maker educators needed time to experiment with new classroom tools in order to feel comfortable enough to transfer the knowledge to their students. When teachers were allowed to use their own hobbies and histories to establish the setting or framework of the experiment, they felt higher levels of engagement with their own learning.

This finding matches what prior research has argued in regard to effective maker educators who are autodidactic adult learners. Knowles (1980) defined andragogy – the study of adult education – with six factors. In regard to this finding, the descriptor most relevant asserts that the adult learner should have a wealth of prior experiences from which to draw in order to synthesize new understandings from the most recent experiences. Maker educators understood that as self-taught adult learners, their skills could not be acquired simply by reading manuals or guidebooks. They needed the tools, materials, and time to experiment. As learners with the aim of becoming experts, the maker educators needed opportunities not just to succeed, but to fail.

Each attempt would build on the prior knowledge acquired during the failed attempts. The 201 repeated iterations with constant modifications and tweaking are a part of the redesign-test and evaluate steps of the engineering design process (Fredette, 2013).

Using Kolb’s learning cycle as a lens provided insight on the importance of time for authentic learning to occur; the lens also showed how the lack of time can be a great obstacle to a maker educator’s progress. Kolb’s experiential learning cycles involve four cyclic stage—doing, feeling, watching, and thinking—for the learner to understand the content and skills acquired during the experience and thus be transformed. None of the stages could be omitted in this process (Rumson, 2018). The maker educators needed time to experiment with the new tools.

They needed time to investigate their interests or hobbies through the new techniques. Then they needed time to reflect on what they learned. The last stage of the learning cycle was for the maker educators to use their critical thinking skills to consider how they and their students could apply the new techniques to solve other problems (Long and Gummelt, 2019).

Importance of Administrative Support

The third finding is that the effectiveness of a maker educator depended on the support of their administrators. The administrators determined the location, funding, and contents of the maker spaces. They also selected the maker educators and arranged the scheduling and frequency of classes. Thus, the administrators’ attitudes and considerations for the school maker labs directly impacted the degree of implementation of the schools’ maker program (Halverson and

Sheridan, 2014).

Similar to the second finding, which notes the importance of time for maker educators, this finding notes that half of the participants had to invest valuable effort on administrative paperwork to justify the deviation of their classroom curricula away from teaching to the state standardized tests. As noted in the literature, with the calls from politicians and policymakers for 202 accountability, high-stakes tests continue to be a primary tool for measuring student progress

(Savage, 2019; Socol et al., 2018). Having to teach to the test was a hurdle for educators who were required to explain any changes to the traditional pedagogy. The remaining half of the maker educators had supportive administrators who allowed them the support, resources, and funding for maximum effective implementation of the maker education curriculum. By not needing to justify their deviations from the standardized curricula, these educators were able to dedicate more effort to their maker classroom.

With regard to the theoretical framework, the teachers who had to justify any deviation from teaching to the standardized tests were less able to experience all four stages of Kolb’s learning cycle in order for the learning to be complete and transformational (Long & Gummelt,

2019). Both these maker educators and their students would be denied the opportunities to learn through all four stages of Kolb’s cycle. Having the trust, support, and encouragement of the principal enhances the performances of the maker educators and the effectiveness of the maker space (Harper, 2017).

Distinct Attributes of Maker Educators

The fourth finding is that proficient maker educators had specific attributes that reinforced their learning and maker skills. The narratives of the six participants revealed the common characteristics of a strong work ethic, a high level of determination, and great flexibility. These characteristics developed in the individuals as they overcame their hurdles in life and helped the educators achieve their goals. As the participants met their challenges in life, they developed skills, attitudes, and thinking processes that contributed to their personas. The fourth finding provides additional insights to the first research question. The participants’ exposures to opportunities where they could make repeated attempts until they achieved success 203 contributed to their personal levels of resilience, tenacity, and risk taking (Muscat & Mollicone,

2012; Rumson, 2018). The experiences from the participants’ histories impacted the participants’ independent thinking which allowed them to pursue new unproven activities.

This finding illustrates the utility of Kolb’s learning styles inventory, which was discussed in the literature review, as a lens for understanding the significance of the maker educators’ attributes. The inventory explains how the traits of the early practitioners channeled them towards making and maker education. Kolb’s learning styles inventory, developed as an extension of his experiential learning cycles theory, is a matrix of learning styles formed by the individual’s tendencies on their perceptual and processing continuums. The matrix presents four types of learning preferences: accommodators, divergers, convergers, and assimilators. Although the literature noted that all four stages as well as combinations of the stages may be applied in different circumstances, the maker educators as a group tended to identify as accommodators.

The accommodators’ learning styles indicates learners who learn best through active experimentation and concrete experiences (Muscat & Mollicone, 2012; Rumson, 2018). This group of people are the most willing to take risks, deal best with failing, and learn most effectively through repeated practice. The initial maker educators—as innovators and implementors of their novel programs—had the necessary attributes to attempt and succeed at establishing their maker programs and spaces.

Conclusion

The narratives of the six participants provided insights to the factors in their lives that eventuated their transformation to become successful maker educators. From the first and fourth findings, it can be concluded that the transformation and influences for an educator to become a proficient maker educator begins with the earliest influences and events of the individual and 204 continues throughout their lives. The findings addressed the first research question by showing how the family backgrounds and early opportunities of successful maker educators impacted and channeled them to acquire certain attributes and learning preferences that led to their eventual career paths and successes. The educators who met more obstacles that they needed to overcome early in life acquired higher levels of resilience, more creative and critical thinking skills, a stronger work ethic, and a greater tendency to take risks.

The understanding that maker teachers need sufficient time and support from their administrators in order to become proficient maker educators flows from the second and third findings. This conclusion addresses the second research question. It is important for the principal and district administrators to provide the funding, space, and professional development for a teacher to implement a maker program successfully. Furthermore, having support from administrators demonstrates a level of trust so that the maker educators does not have to expend effort on paperwork to justify their experiential maker curriculum in lieu of lessons that teach to a standardized test. However, the most important element that principals can allocate to the educator is time. Sufficient time is needed for the teacher to acquire new maker knowledge and skills through iterations that undergo Kolb’s experiential cycle of learning. Not having enough time is the greatest obstacle for maker educators who are trying to effectively implement a maker space in a formal school setting.

Recommendations for Future Practice

The six participants shared their stories about their lives as they transformed into maker educators within their school settings. Because maker spaces in formal K-12 schools are still being established to differing degrees, the following recommendations are made with an extended time frame in mind: 205

The first two recommendations concern what educators can do to improve the education for their students. As a long-term goal, maker education should be embedded throughout K–12 curricula instead of being siloed into particular classes in order to integrate content and provide more connections. Doing so will enhance learning by providing relevance and increasing engagement for the students. The first recommendation is that educators, with the support of administrators and policymakers, should incorporate maker education into the core subjects to help develop future generations of makers. The new makers will have the critical, creative, communication, and collaborative skills to lead others to making. Some may even become the next generation of maker educators.

The second recommendation is that early childhood educators, also with the support of administrators and policymakers, should provide more opportunities for young children to address issues in their own environment. Being allowed to problem-solve in search of answers to open-ended questions reflects the real world and will increase the students’ confidence to make informed assessments and decisions. Allowing students to become accustomed to making their own decisions should help them be less hesitant to take risks as adults, thus providing foundations for acquiring the attributes of Kolb’s accommodators.

The third and fourth recommendations are for administrators seeking to implement an effective maker program in their school settings. The third recommendation is for the administrators to consider the characteristics of the four categories of Kolb’s learning styles inventory when interviewing teacher candidates to implement a maker program. Assigning an educator who understands and enjoys taking risks and learning through iterations would help create a culture of risk-taking and resilience in the maker space. In order to promote risk-taking, students need to know they can fail without the threat of adverse consequences. Just as no two 206 maker spaces look alike, effective maker educators have a wide range of characteristics. The following list of interview questions may help administrators identify maker attributes in a candidate:

• How you guide students to solve problems in an iterative manner?

• How do you encourage students to learn from their mistakes to improve their designs?

• What do you continually do to expand your body of knowledge as an educator?

• How do you support individual and group initiatives from your students?

• How do you create a trusting environment or a safe space in the classroom for your

students to be comfortable taking risks and potentially making mistakes?

• What have you done to provide experiential learning opportunities for your students?

The fourth recommendation is for the administrators to provide support and time for maker educators to develop their maker skills. The additional time will allow the maker educators to gain skills and understandings through their own experiences, attempts, failures, and successes,

These novice maker educators should be allowed to use their preferred learning styles to undergo

Kolb’s learning cycles autodidactically, in order to expand and improve the maker programs in their schools.

The last recommendation is for the educators concerning their own transformation from novice to expert. New maker educators who need to acquire understandings about the maker mindset should begin by participating in maker focused professional development. At the workshops and presentations, the novice maker teacher should begin to build up their network of like-minded educators by joining groups through social media and listservs in order to exchange ideas. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram searches for maker education groups will yield many 207 opportunities to connect, consult, and collaborate with educators who are also initiators and innovators.

Limitations

One of the limitations of this study was finding participants who were proficient maker educators whose anonymity could be maintained. The maker educator community remains small and collaborative; nevertheless, the research sample size of six participants could not represent that entire community. The second limitation of this study was the use of Kolb’s learning cycle theory as a framework to understand how the participants acquired their unique skills. Not all of the participants’ transformational learning experiences fit precisely within the four steps of

Kolb’s cycle. Some events from the participants’ narratives were difficult to pinpoint or tag within Kolb’s cycle. Some experiences were more complex with smaller learning cycles existing within steps of the learning cycles. Some participant’s experiences were less complex where a step in Kolb’s learning cycle may have been brief. The third limitation is that the participants were interviewed over a 6-week period during the COVID-19 pandemic quarantine. Because of five of the six maker educators were teaching virtually from their homes, observations of their maker spaces were not possible.

Recommendations for Future Research

Based on the results and findings of this study, the following recommendations are made for future research: More long-term studies should be made at a later time when observations of the participants’ maker spaces are possible. The observations would allow insights into the best layouts for efficient flow in maker spaces. The future long-term studies will have a larger sample size from a wider range of locales with participants whose anonymities can more easily be maintained. Some future studies could be focused on the attributes of the maker educators in 208 order to compile an officialized array of objective behavior-based criteria that could be used by interviewers. One possibility for future research would include a nationwide survey of maker educators to determine the prevalence of these findings about learning styles and personal backgrounds. The last recommendation for future research is for studies using frameworks that would look at issues such as equity, race, gender, and socioeconomic status in regard to maker education.

Reflection

In the beginning, my decision to earn a doctoral degree in education was driven by a need to prove to myself that I was capable of earning a terminal degree. Because my parents needed my help in the family business for 25 years, I chose to take the path of duty and delay my college education. I never resented or blamed my parents; it was simply our family’s situation as first- generation immigrants. Although my parents never verbalized it, I knew they felt sad for their dependency on me. So, when the time came for me to actually be able to pursue my dream, I looked to Northeastern University to provide me with enough of a challenge to feel that exhilarating sense of accomplishment at the moment when I reached my goal.

Along the way, I have made life-long friends from a cohort of world-class educators. We helped lift each other in our most difficult times. I saw my closest cohorts cross their finish lines in 3 to 5 years and was happy for them. My dissertation journey was not as swift or direct as theirs. I will have used every bit of my 7 years savoring each moment of this learning process.

Yet, I understand that there is so much more to learn, and I cannot stop. At the end of this phase of my journey, I realize that learning is life-long, experiential, and all about the process.

209

References

Aufrichtig, A. (2014). The prerequisites and privilege of autodidacticism: What you already need

to know to teach yourself. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, 20(4),

56-59.

Batista, E. (2018, June 9). A brief history of T-groups. Executive Coaching [Web log post].

Retrieved from https://www.edbatista.com/2018/06/a-brief-history-of-t-groups.html

Beard, C. (2018). Dewey in the world of experiential education. New Directions for Adult and

Continuing Education, 158 , 27-37.

Berk, R. (2005). Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness. International Journal

of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17 (1), 48-62.

Bers, M., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and

tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers &

Education, 72 , 145-157. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020

Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of making in science education. Studies in

Science Education, 53 (1), 75-103. doi:10.1080/03057267.2016.1275380

Blikstein, P. (2017). The history and prospects of the maker movement in education. In M. de

Vries (Ed.), Handbook of technology education (pp. 419-437.New York, NY: Springer

International. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-38889-2_33-1

Boileau, T. (2014, June 11). Why Dewey would applaud the maker movement in schools. [Web

log post]. Retrieved from http://paula.h4.co.nz/?p=370

Bonner, J. (1982). Systematic lesson design for adult learners. Journal of Instructional

Development, 6(1), 34-42. 210

Briscoe, F. (2005). A question of representation in educational discourse: Multiplicities and

intersections of identities and positionalities. Educational Studies, 38 (1), 23-41.

Brown, H. (1990). Tai Xingzhi: Progressive educator in republican China. Biography, 13 (1), 21-

42. doi:10.1353/bio.2010.0419

Buechley, L. (2014). Eyeo 2014 – Leah Buechley. [Video]. Retrieved from

https://vimeo.com/110616469

Carlton Parsons, E. (2008). Positionality of African Americans and a theoretical accommodation

of it: Rethinking science education research. Science Education, 92 (6), 1127-1144.

Chan, S. (2010). Applications of andragogy in multi-disciplined teaching and learning. Journal

of Adult Education, 39 (2), 25-35.

Chu, S., Angello, G., Saenz, M., & Quek, F. (2017). Fun in making: Understanding the

experience of fun and learning through curriculum-based making in the elementary

school classroom. Entertainment Computing, 18 , 31-40.

doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2016.08.007

Clandinin, D. (2006). Narrative inquiry: A methodology for studying lived experience. Research

Studies in Music Education, 27 (1), 44-54.

Clandinin, D., & Connelly, F. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative

research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Clandinin, D. Jean, Pushor, Debbie, & Orr, Anne Murray. (2007). Navigating Sites for Narrative

Inquiry. Journal of Teacher Education, 58 (1), 21-35.

Clapp, E., & Jimenez, R. (2016). Implementing STEAM in maker-centered learning. Psychology

of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10 (4), 481-491. 211

Cox, A. (2018, March 9). The current education system is failing our students: An examination

of causes of educational inequity. EdSurge Independent . Retrieved from

https://edsurgeindependent.com/the-current-education-system-is-failing-our-students-

b35614943541

Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches .

(3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Davies, S. (2002). The paradox of progressive education: A frame analysis. Sociology of

Education, 75 (4), 269-286. doi:10.2307/3090279

DeJarnette, N. K. (2012). America’s children: Providing early exposure to STEM (science,

technology, engineering and math) initiatives. Education, 133 (1), 77-84.

Delpit, L., & Dowdy, J. (2002). The skin that we speak: Thoughts on language and culture in the

classroom. New York, NY: The New Press.

Deveci, T., & Tezcan, F. (2017). Andragogical, pedagogical and lifelong learning orientations of

freshman engineering students in a project-based course. Yaşadıkça Eğitim, 31(1), 69-88.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience & education . New York, NY: Touchstone.

Dougherty, D. (2013). The maker mindset. In M. Honey & D. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play:

Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 7-11). New York, NY: Routledge.

Dougherty, D., & Conrad, A. (2016). Free to make: How the maker movement is changing our

schools, our jobs, and our minds. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books. 212

Edgerton, J., & Roberts, L. (2014). Cultural capital or habitus? Bourdieu and beyond in the

explanation of enduring educational inequality. Theory and Research in Education,

12 (2), 193-220.

Experiential learning. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://carleton.ca/edc/teachingresources/high-

impact-practices/experiential-learning/

Fensterwald, J. (2013, December 3). U.S. scores stagnant, other countries pass us by in latest

international test. Edsource . Retrieved from https://edsource.org/2013/u-s-scores-

stagnant-other-nations-pass-by-in-latest-international-comparison/52052

Forrest, S., & Peterson, T. (2006). It’s called andragogy. Academy of Management Learning &

Education, 5 (1), 113-122.

Fredette, M. (2013). Full STEAM ahead. T H E Journal, 40 (10), 35-38.

Frey, A., Mandlawitz, M., & Alvarez, M. (2012). Leaving NCLB behind. Children & Schools,

34 (2), 67-69.

Gerstein, J. (2013, October 22). Is it project-based learning, maker education or just projects?

[Web log post]. Retrieved from

https://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/is-it-project-based-learning-

maker-education-or-just-projects/

Gerstein. J. (2014, June 22). Maker education and experiential education [Web log post].

Retrieved from https://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/2014/06/22/maker-

education-and-experiential-education/

Gerstein, J. (2016a). Becoming a maker educator. Techniques, 91 (7), 14-19. 213

Gerstein, J. (2016b, April 8). The educator as a maker educator workshop [Web log post].

Retrieved from https://medium.com/@jackiegerstein/the-educator-as-a-maker-educator-

workshop-94f4ea61858d

Gordon, M. (2016). Why should scholars keep coming back to John Dewey? Educational

Philosophy and Theory, 48 (10), 1077-1091. doi:10.1080/00131857.2016.1150800

Halverson, E., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational

Review, 84 (4), 495-504.

Harper, C. (2017, October). The STEAM-powered classroom. Educational Leadership, 75 (2),

70-74.

Hayden, J., Geras, M., Gerth, N., & Crespin, M. (2017). Land, wood, water, and space: Senator

Robert S. Kerr, Congress, and selling the space race to the American public. Social

Science Quarterly, 98 (4), 1189-1203.

Herold, B. (2016, April 19). Needs for “resourcefulness,” equity probed in maker ed. Education

Week , 35 (28), 8-9.

Holmes, G., & Abington-Cooper, M. (2000). Pedagogy vs. andragogy: A false dichotomy? The

Journal of Technology Studies, 26 (2), 50-55.

Hsu, Y., Baldwin, S., & Ching, Y. (2017). Learning through making and maker education.

TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 61 (6), 589-594.

doi:10.1007/s11528-017-0172-6

Jarrett, C. (2018, April 8) “Another nail in the coffin for learning styles”: Students did not

benefit from studying according to their supposed learning style. The British

Psychological Society Research Digest [Web log post]. Retrieved from 214

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/04/03/another-nail-in-the-coffin-for-learning-styles-

students-did-not-benefit-from-studying-according-to-their-supposed-learning-style/

Jupp, J., & Slattery, P. (2006). White male teachers on difference: Narratives of contact and

tensions. International Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 23 (5), 199-215.

doi:10.1080/09518390903107499

Kafai, Y. B. (2018). Building a home for the maker movement. Journal of Digital Learning in

Teacher Education, 34 (1), 4-5. doi:10.1080/21532974.2017.1398970

Kennedy, J. (1962). John F. Kennedy moon speech – Rice Stadium . Retrieved from

https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm

Kim, Y., Edouard, K., Alderfer, K., & Smith, B. (2019). Making culture: A nationwide study of

education makerspaces . Retrieved from https://drexel.edu/excite/engagement/learning-

innovation/making-culture-report/study-process/

Kintz, T., Lane, J., Gotwals, A., & Cisterna, D. (2015). Professional development at the local

level: Necessary and sufficient conditions for critical colleagueship. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 51 , 121-136.

Kloss, D. (2018). Informality and heterarchy in American progressive education: The Peachtown

model. Schools, 15 (1), 65-85.

Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge Adult Education.

Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experimental learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 215

Kolb, D. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development

(2 nd ed.). Sebastopol, CA: Safari.

Konak, A., Clark, T., & Nasereddin, M. (2014). Using Kolb’s experiential learning cycle to

improve student learning in virtual computer laboratories. Computers & Education, 72 ,

11-22.

Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America.

New York, NY: Crown.

Krumm, H. (2014, July). Teaching proficiency: It’s the teachers that matter! Goethe Institute.

Retrieved from https://www.goethe.de/en/spr/mag/20406817.html

Kurti, R. S., Kurti, D. L., & Fleming, L. (2014a). The philosophy of educational makerspaces:

Part 1 of making an educational makerspace. Teacher Librarian, 41 (5), 8-11.

Kurti, R. S., Kurti, D. L., & Fleming, L. (2014b). The environment and tools of great educational

makerspaces: Part 2 of making an educational makerspace. Teacher Librarian, 42 (1), 8-

12.

Kurti, R. S., Kurti, D. L., & Fleming, L. (2014c). Practical implementation of an educational

makerspace: Part 3 of making an educational makerspace. Teacher Librarian, 42 (2), 20-

24.

Land, M. (2013). Full STEAM ahead: The benefits of integrating the arts into STEM. Procedia

Computer Science, 20 , 547-552.

Lehman, J. (2015, December 9). STEM and social mobility: Not who you know, but what you

know [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://blogs.mtu.edu/emc/2015/12/09/stem-and-

social-mobility-not-who-you-know-but-what-you-know/ 216

Little, T., & Ellison, K. (2015). Loving learning: How progressive education can save America’s

schools. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Long, E., & Gummelt, G. (2019). Experiential service learning: Building skills and sensitivity

with Kolb’s learning theory. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education , 1-14. doi:

10.1080/02701960.2019.1673386

Lynch, S., Burton, E., Behrend, T., House, A., Ford, M., Spillane, N., … Means, B. (2017).

Understanding inclusive STEM high schools as opportunity structures for

underrepresented students: Critical components. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 55 (5), 712-748.

Maker Education Initiative. (2015). Youth makerplace playbook . Retrieved from

https://makered.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Youth-Makerspace-

Playbook_FINAL.pdf

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

Martinez, S., & Stager, G. (2013a). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the

classroom . Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.

Martinez, S., & Stager, G. (2013b). A trend worth watching: The maker movement. On CUE,

35 (4), 6-7, 26.

Martinez, S., & Stager, G. S. (2014). The maker movement: A learning revolution. Learning &

Leading with Technology , 41 (7), 12-17.

Martinez, S., & Stager, G. (2019). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the

classroom (2 nd ed.). Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press. 217

Maslyk, J. (2016). STEAM makers: Fostering creativity and innovation in the elementary

classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin/SAGE.

McLeod, S. (2017). Kolb: Learning styles . Retrieved from

https://www.simplypsychology.org/simplypsychology.org-Kolb-Learning-Styles.pdf

Miles, M., Huberman, A., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods

sourcebook . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mills, A. (2017). What is STEM education? Retrieved from

https://www.mtu.edu/news/stories/2017/september/what-stem-education.html

Mitchell, P. (2017, March 7). What is project-based learning and maker education? [Web log

post]. Retrieved from https://wonderworkshopgv.wordpress.com/2017/03/07/what-is-

project-based-learning-and-maker-education/

Monk, D. (2013). John Dewey and adult learning in museums. Adult Learning, 24 (2), 63-71.

Moore, T., Tank, K., Glancy, A., & Kersten, J. (2015). NGSS and the landscape of engineering

in K-12 state science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52 (3), 296-

318.

Muscat, M., & Mollicone, P. (2012). Using Kolb’s learning cycle to enhance the teaching and

learning of mechanics of materials. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering

Education, 40 (1), 66-78.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in

science, reading, and mathematics literacy in an international context: First look at PISA

2015 . Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017048

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for

educational reform . Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED226006.pdf 218

National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states.

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Nolin, J. (2014, July 16). Making room for maker’s space. American School & University

Magazine . Retrieved from http://asu.mag.com/classroom-technology/makinh-room-

maker-s-space.

Olanipekun, O. (2018). Descartes on education: Autodidacticism or the traditional moral

method? Euromentor Journal, 9 (3), 20-31.

Oliver, K. (2016a). Professional development considerations for makerspace leaders, Part One:

Addressing “What?” and “Why?” TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to

Improve Learning, 60 (2), 160-166.

Oliver, K. (2016b). Professional development considerations for makerspace leaders, Part Two:

Addressing “How?” TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning,

60 (3), 211-217.

Patton, R., & Knochel, A. (2017). Meaningful makers: Stuff, sharing, and connection in STEAM

curriculum. Art Education, 70 (1), 36-43.

Payne, D. (2016, November 22). Science and social mobility [Web log post]. Retrieved from

http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2016/11/22/science-and-social-mobility/

Peppler, K., & Wohlwend, K. (2018). Theorizing the nexus of STEAM practice. Arts Education

Policy Review, 119 (2), 88-99. doi:10.1080/10632913.2017.1316331

Peterson, K., Decato, L., & Kolb, D. (2015). Moving and learning: Expanding style and

increasing flexibility. Journal of Experiential Education, 38 (3), 228-244.

Ponterotto, J. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research

paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 126-136. 219

Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards: The new U.S.

intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40 (3), 103-116.

Quigley, C., & Herro, D. (2019). An educator’s guide to STEAM: Engaging students using real-

world problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Ravitch, D. (2012, March 8). Schools we can envy. The New York Times Review of Books.

Retrieved from https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/03/08/schools-we-can-envy/

Riordan, R. (2013, January 17). Change the subject: Making the case for project-based learning

[Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/21st-century-skills-

changing-subjects-larry-rosenstock-rob-riordan

Roberts, C. (2010). The dissertation journey: A practical and comprehensive guide to planning,

writing, and defending your dissertation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Robinson, K. (2010, October 14). RSA animate: Changing educator paradigms [Video].

Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

Rocco, T., & Hatcher, T. (2011). The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing . San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rockland, R., Bloom, D., Carpinelli, J., Burr-Alexander, L., Hirsch, L., & Kimmel, H. (2010).

Advancing the “E” in K-12 STEM education. Journal of Technology Studies, 36 (1), 53-

64.

Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3 rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rumson, R. (2018, August 17). David Kolb’s learning styles. [Web log post]. Retrieved from

https://www.eln.io/blog/david-kolb-learning-styles 220

Ryoo, J., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2018). Equity in STEM-rich making: Pedagogies and designs.

Equity & Excellence in Education, 51 (1), 3-6.

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Santo, R. (2014, November 9). On equity issues in the maker movement, and implications for

making and learning [Web log post]. Retrieved from

https://empathetics.org/2014/11/09/on-equity-issues-in-the-maker-movement-and-

implications-for-making-and-learning/

Savage, A. (2019). Every tool’s a hammer . New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Shaffer, L. (2013). STEM: Everyday engineering. Instructor, 122 (5), 38-41.

Sinclair, K. (2018, October 25). Edge-ification meets maker movement. Contractor . Retrieved

from https://www.contractormag.com/iot/edge-ifcation-meets-maker-movement

Smith, M. (2001). Kurt Lewin: Groups, experiential learning and action research [Web log post].

Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-lewin.htm

Socol, I., Moran, P., & Ratliff, C. (2018). Timeless learning: How imagination, observation, and

zero-based thinking change schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Steeves, K., Bernhardt, P., Burns, J., & Lombard, M. (2009). Transforming American

educational identity after Sputnik. American Education History Journal, 36 (1-2), 71-87.

Svinicki, M., & Dixon, N. (1987). The Kolb model modified for classroom activities. College

Teaching, 35 (4), 141-146.

Tamim, S., & Grant, M. (2013). Definitions and uses: Case study of teachers implementing

project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 7 (2), 72-

101. 221

Tian, H., Li, X., Ren, S., Zhang, L., & Wu, F. (2017). The initial development of the factors to

influence the maker teachers’ acceptance of maker education scale. 2017 International

Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT), 250-253.

doi:10.1109/EITT.2017.68

Üçgül, M., & Cagiltay, K. (2014). Design and development issues for educational robotics

training camps. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24 (2), 203-

222. doi:10.1007/s10798-013-9253-9

Villegas, P. (2019, November 1). Models of the engineering design process [Web log post].

Retrieved from https://www.txstate-epdc.net/models-of-the-engineering-design-process/

Vilorio, D. (2014). STEM 101: Intro to tomorrow’s jobs. Occupational Outlook Quarterly.

Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2014/spring/art01.pdf

Vince, R. (1998). Behind and beyond Kolb’s learning cycle. Journal of Management Education,

22 (3), 304-319.

Vossoughi, S., Hooper, P., & Escudé, M. (2016). Making through the lens of culture and power:

Toward transformative visions for educational equity. Harvard Educational Review,

86 (2), 206-232.

WGBH Educational Foundation. (2013). PBS kids design squad nation: The design process

[Poster]. Retrieved from

https://pbskids.org/designsquad/pdf/parentseducators/DSN_NASA_DesignProcess_poste

r.pdf

Wilson, W. (1909). The meaning of a liberal education. High School Teachers Association of

New York, 3 , 19-31. Retrieved from

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Meaning_of_a_Liberal_Education 222

Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community

cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91.

Zainal, N., Din, R., Abd Majid, N., Nasrudin, M., & Abd Rahman, A. (2018). Primary and

secondary school students’ perspective on Kolb-based STEM module and robotic

prototype. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information

Technology, 8 (4-2), 1394-1401.

223

Appendix A: Recruitment Email to Teacher Participants

Dear [Educator Name],

I am enrolled in a doctoral program at Northeastern University in the College of Professional Studies. I am now in the process of completing the dissertation stage of the program. The focus of my study is how maker educators who have been instrumental in establishing the maker program at their K-12 school acquired the knowledge and understanding to operate an effective maker program. I am writing to express my interest in having you participate in this doctoral research study.

With the use of the qualitative research method of narrative inquiry, I intend to collect and analyze data to retell the experiences of six educators who have initiated and implemented effective STEAM maker programs in their schools. The research process will involve three interviews via Skype lasting up to 60 minutes that will be digitally recorded with permission of the participants. The first two interviews will be transcribed and a copy will be provided to the participants after the second interview. The third interview will allow the participant and researcher to validate, correct, and discuss the transcript as well as provide additional insights as needed. Based on my analysis of the interviews and feedback, I will write a narrative of your experiences in becoming a master maker educator.

Narrative inquiry is a research methodology that allows the researcher and educators to collaborate in co-constructing and retelling of the stories of maker educators’ experiences as they became effective initiators and implementors of K-12 school maker programs. The resulting narratives provide understanding and insights for administrators and other educators who may be novices or experiencing challenges in the implementation of maker education curricula at their schools.

Your participation would be voluntary. You could withdraw from this study at any time without negative consequences by advising me. All information you provide would be completely confidential. Kindly email me at [email protected] to indicate your willingness to participate in the study. If you have concerns or questions, you may also contact me at 812-457- 2482 via phone or text. I look forward to hearing from you and I thank you in advance for your help and attention to this research.

Respectfully,

Soi Chong Powell

224

Appendix B: Informed Consent Form

Northeastern University, College of Professional Studies Investigator Name: Principal Investigator, Dr. Kelly Conn, Student Researcher, Soi C. Powell Title of Project: Maker Education Initiators and Innovators

Informed Consent to Participate in a Research Study We are inviting you to take part in a research study. This form will tell you about the study, but the researcher will explain it to you first. You may ask this person any questions that you have. When you are ready to decide, you may tell the researcher whether you want to participate. You do not have to participate if you do not want to. If you decide to participate, the researcher will ask you to sign this statement and will give you a copy to keep.

Why am I being asked to take part in this research study? We are asking you to participate in this study because you have effectively initiated and implemented a maker education program in a formal K-12 school setting.

Why is this research study being done? The purpose of this research is to provide insights from the stories of experienced maker educators that will be helpful to novice educators or any other educators who may be struggling with implementing maker education programs in their formal K-12 school settings.

What will I be asked to do? If you decide to take part in this study, I will ask you to participate in three 60-minute interviews via Skype that will be recorded with your permission. The first interview will be about your background and life experiences, your school setting, and events that have led to your being a maker educator. The second interview will be about your experiences - including successes and challenges - during the time you were learning how to become a maker educator. After the completion of the second interview, the interviews will be transcribed. I will share the transcript with you. During the third interview, we will discuss the transcript and you will be able to share any feedback, concerns, ask questions, correct any mistakes or misunderstandings, and add any information that may have been missed in the first two interviews.

Where will this take place and how much of my time will it take? You will be interviewed three times via Skype at a location and time that is convenient for you. Each interview will take about 1 hour.

Will there be any risk or discomfort to me? There are no significant risks involved in being a participant in this study.

Will I benefit by being in this research? There will be no direct benefit from your participation in this study. However, you may also benefit from the reflections on your experiences and the factors that have contributed to your expertise as an influential maker educator. The information gathered from the story of your experiences as an educator will impact and guide other teachers as they implement maker education programs in their schools. 225

Who will see the information about me? Your participation and information in the study will be completely confidential. Pseudonyms will be used for the participants and their schools; only the researcher will know the participants’ identities.

If I do not want to take part in the study, what choices do I have? You are not required to participate in this study. If you do not want to be a part of the study, you do not have to sign this form.

What will happen if I suffer any harm from this research? There are no significant risks involved to participating in this study.

Can I stop my participation in this study? Participation is this study is completely voluntary. Your participation or nonparticipation will not in any way affect other relationships. You do not have to participate if you do not want to and you can refuse to answer any of the questions during the interviews. You may quit at any time after starting your participation without penalty or costs of any nature or type.

Who can I contact if I have questions or problems? If you have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact Soi Chong Powell at [email protected], the person mainly responsible for this research. You can also contact Dr. Kelly Conn at [email protected], the principal investigator.

Who can I contact about my rights as a participant? If you have any questions about your rights in this research, you may contact Nan C. Regina, Director, Human Subject Research Protection, Mail Stop: 560-177, 360 Huntington Avenue, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115. Tel: 617.373.4588, Email: [email protected] . You may call anonymously if you wish.

Will I be paid for my participation? There is no monetary compensation for your participation.

Will it cost me anything to participate? There is no cost to participate in this study.

This study has been reviewed and approved by the Northeastern University Institutional Review Board (# xx-xx-xx). [protocol # will be provided to you by the HSRP office].

I agree to take part in this research.

______Signature of person [parent] agreeing to take part Date

______Printed name of person above 226

______Signature of person who explained the study to the Date participant above and obtained consent

______Printed name of person above

I agree to be contacted for follow up or for future research studies

______Contact Information (email or phone)

227

Appendix C: Interview Protocol

Institution: Northeastern University

Interviewee (Name and Title): ______

Interviewer: Soi C. Powell

Date of Interview: ______

Location of Interview: ______

Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in this study. I am researching how initial maker educators found ways to learn the content, skills, and best methods for teaching maker education in school settings. I am interested in your experiences as you evolved from a novice educator to become an accomplished educator because your insights can be helpful to other teachers who are in the process of setting up a maker education program in their school. Because your responses are important to this study and I want to make sure I capture all the information that you share, I would like to record our interview today. Do I have your permission to record this conversation? [If participant responds yes, thank the participant and hit record at this time. If participant declines to be recorded, then their participation in the study will conclude at this point.] I will also be taking notes during the interview. Afterwards the interview will be transcribed. Before we begin the interview, I would like to review the informed consent form for this study that was sent to you before this interview, which you have read, reviewed, signed and returned to me. Basically, the informed consent form states that: a) all of your responses will remain confidential and a pseudonym will be used should I quote you from the transcript, b) your participation is voluntary and you may stop at any time if you so choose, and c) I do not intend to inflict any harm. You are welcome to express any concerns or ask any questions at any time during these interviews. Do you have any questions or concerns? This first interview will last about an hour and will focus on your background and your current work. The second interview will inquire into how you developed into the maker educator that you are today. The third interview will be after I have transcribed the first and second interviews. You will be sent a copy of the transcript. The third interview will focus on gathering your corrections, additions, and any other feedback that you made want to provide after reading the story.

Interview 1: Educator information and background

● Describe your current position. o What duties and responsibilities do you have in your current position? o How long have you been in this position? 228

o Describe the school, students, and culture where you teach. ▪ How many students do you teach? ▪ How many preps do you have per week? ● What led your school to decide to include maker education? o What in your educational and work history led to your current position? o What did you do before you became a maker educator? ● What were your favorite subjects in school and why? o As a student, what maker experiences or other types of experiential learning experiences did you have? o Explain how you perceive or understand your own learning experiences as an adult. o Did you learn differently as a child? If so, how? o Tell about any adults - relatives, friends, teachers, coaches, scoutmasters – who influenced or mentored your maker mindset and activities. ● What is your philosophy of education? Which educators in your past have influenced your style of teaching? o How much time you spend on planning? o How much time you spend on maintaining the maker space? o How much time you spend on securing raw materials and supplies for projects? o How much time you spend on learning new skills that you can use in the classroom? ● As a maker educator, what methods have you used to encourage student engagement in your maker space? o How do you encourage the timid students to take chances? o How do you guide impatient students to channel their enthusiasm? ● What aspects of maker education wear you down? ● What regrets, if any, do you have about becoming a maker educator? ● What do you enjoy most about being a maker educator? ● What immediate or future goals do you have as an educator? 229

● If a student expressed interest in becoming a maker educator, what advice would you give them? Thank you. This concludes the first interview. Let’s set up a time for the second interview where we will focus on your experiences and thoughts on becoming the maker educator that you are today.

Interview 2: Educator’s journey to becoming an effective maker educator

Thank you for meeting today for the second interview. I appreciated your help with the first interview. Do you have any questions? Now, we’re going to focus on your actual journey in becoming a maker educator.

● Beginning at the moment you decided to become a maker educator, tell how you felt about maker education and your new assignment. o What does experiential education mean to you in relation to your role as an educator? o How much did you already know about experiential education? o How much did you already know about maker education? o Did you volunteer for the maker space assignment or was it assigned to you? Why did you volunteer, if you did? o What apprehensions, if any, did you have? o What changes did you look forward to making in your classroom? ● What were the first activities that you took after you were assigned to the maker space? o What did you find engaging or interesting about the first projects that you used to learn about maker content and skills? o What resources did you use to find out how to develop your initial projects? o How did any mentors or experts advise and teach you? o What skills did you have to learn on your own? o Describe how many iterations and repetition may have helped you to learn new skills well enough to teach your students? o How did you turn your own learning into teachable content and skills for your students? 230

o How did you apply your new skills and knowledge to other projects? ● How did you feel as you were learning these new maker skills and content? o Did you ever feel overwhelmed or have self-doubts? Explain how you overcame those feelings. o Did you sense personal growth and feelings of empowerment? Explain those feelings. o How did colleagues respond to your new assignment and persona as an accomplished maker educator? ● What successes and challenges have you encountered as a maker educator? o How have you learned from these challenges? o What have you learned from the successes? ● What do you think has been your greatest asset or strength that has contributed to your effectiveness as a maker educator? ● How do you stay current with the constant barrage of new information and technology? ● How have you guided other maker educators (novice or otherwise) to acquire the content, skills, and pedagogy they need to implement a maker space? o What suggestions or advice would you give to novice maker educators? o What resources or organizations do you recommend for maker educators – novice or otherwise? This concludes the second interview. You will be receiving copy of the transcript of the first two interviews in 5-7 days to review. Our next meeting will focus on your feedback or concerns about the transcripts. You may also mention any gaps or things that might be helpful to consider. Do you have any questions so far? Thank you again for participating.

Interview 3: Debriefing

Thank you for participating in these interviews. About a week ago, you received the transcript based on two previous interviews. Now our third interview will focus on your feedback from reading the transcript.

● What do you think about the transcript as it is so far? ● Do you feel as if your voice or personality is coming through? 231

● What passages need to be changed? ● Are there any parts that should be deleted? ● What other information should be added that may be helpful to this study? If we had more time, are there any topics you would have liked to have discussed? ● What is the most important thing that you want other maker educators to know? ● Do you have any questions or concerns? Note: These questions and prompts will be supplemented to fill in any gaps after discussion of the transcripts. This concludes the series of interviews for the narrative study. Thank you again for contributing your knowledge and time to help other teachers become better educators.