Advertisement

MakerSpaces in Schools: Networked Learning Among Teachers to Support Curriculum-Driven Pupil Learning in Programming

  • Maria SpanteEmail author
  • Kristina Johansson
  • Jimmy Jaldemark
Chapter
Part of the Research in Networked Learning book series (RINL)

Abstract

In recent years, many countries have introduced programming as content in their national educational strategies. This study focussed on how teachers from various K-6 schools met regularly in learning groups to discuss their experiences integrating programming in MakerSpace settings, places equipped with various materials that can be used to construct things to enhance creativity and cross-disciplinary collaboration. The project focussed on studying the activities in an established network in a Swedish municipality (i.e. how teachers experienced the value of network meetings and how they incorporated lessons learned from other participants in the teacher learning group [TLG]). The study addressed the following research question: What are the learning experiences of teachers in K-6 schools that participate in a top-down networked professional development project that focusses on integrating computer programming into the curriculum? A narrative written method was applied to collect data from seven teachers in the network. The results indicated that teachers found it useful to participate in a top-down networked professional development project. They experienced that participating in the TLG helped them develop their professional attitudes, knowledge and practices.

Keywords

MakerSpace Networked professional development Networked learning Teacher learning groups TLG 

References

  1. Balanskat, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2015). Computing our future: Computer programming and coding – Priorities, school curricula and initiatives across Europe. Brussels, Belgium: European Schoolnet.Google Scholar
  2. Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (1998). The university of learning: Beyond quality and competence in higher education. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, A. (2015). 3D printing in instructional settings: Identifying a curricular hierarchy of activities. TechTrends, 59(5), 16–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carvalho, L., Goodyear, P., & de Laat, M. (Eds.). (2017). Place-based spaces for networked learning. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Christensen, K., Hjorth, M., Iversen, O. S., & Blikstein, P. (2016). Towards a formal assessment of design literacy: analyzing K-12 students’ stance towards inquiry. Design Studies, 46, 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chu, S., Quek, F., Bhangaonkar, S., & Boettcher Ging, A. (2015). Making the maker: A means-to-an-ends approach to nurturing the Maker mindset in elementary-aged children. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 5, 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Laat, M. F., Schreurs, B., & Nijland, F. (2014). Communities of practice and value creation in networks. In R. F. Poell, T. Rocco, & G. Roth (Eds.), The Routledge companion to human resource development (pp. 249–257). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Doppenberg, J. J., Bakx, A. W. E. A., & den Brok, P. J. (2012). Collaborative teacher learning in different primary school settings. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 18, 547–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellström, P. (2010). Practice-based innovation: A learning perspective. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(1–2), 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellström, P. (2011). Informal learning at work: Conditions, processes and logics. In M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evans, & B. N. O’Connor (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of workplace learning (pp. 105–119). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. El-Zanafly, D. (2015). Imitation, iteration and improvisation: Embodied interaction in making and learning. Design Studies, 41, 79–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. Luxembourg: Publication office of the EU. Research report by the Joint Research Centre of the Research Commission.Google Scholar
  14. Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (2004). Research on networked learning: An overview. In P. Goodyear, S. Banks, V. Hodgson, & D. McConnell (Eds.), Advances in research on networked learning (pp. 1–9). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Hanraets, I., Hulsebosch, J., & de Laat, M. (2011). Experiences of pioneers facilitating teacher networks for professional development Educational Media International, 48(2), pp85.Google Scholar
  16. Hatlevik, O. E. (2017). Examining the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy, their digital competence, strategies to evaluate information, and use of ICT at school. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61(5), 555–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hazar, E. (2018). Digital competence in primary education: A review of learning outcomes. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 5(2), 443–458.Google Scholar
  18. Heintz, F., & Mannila, L. (2018). Computational thinking for all – An experience report on scaling up teaching computational thinking to all pupils in a major city in Sweden. In SIGCSE ‘18: SIGCSE ‘18: The 49th ACM technical symposium on computer science education, February 21–24, 2018, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  19. Hynes, M., & Hynes, W. (2014). Appearances matter: The perceived complexity, coherence, mystery and legibility of MakerSpace labs. Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), IEEE, 1–7.Google Scholar
  20. Jonasson, M. (2013). Programming as a compulsory school subject is the wrong way to go. Retrieved October 14, 2018, from The Internet Foundation in Sweden https://www.iis.se/english/blog/programming-as-a-compulsory-school-subject-is-the-wrong-way-to-go/
  21. Jones, C. (2015). Networked learning: An educational paradigm for the age of digital networks. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kurti, S. R., Kurti, D. L., & Fleming, L. (2014). The philosophy of educational MakerSpaces. Teacher Librarian, 41(5), 8–11.Google Scholar
  23. Lieberman, A., & Wood, D. R. (2003). Inside the National Writing Project. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  24. Nijland, F., Van Amersfoort, D., Schreurs, B., & de Laat, M. (2018). Stimulating teachers’ learning in networks: Awareness, ability, and appreciation. In S. A. Yoon & K. J. Baker-Doyle (Eds.), Social capital, social networks, teachers, and educational change: Interventions and outcomes (pp. 152–173). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Ryberg, T., Sinclair, C., Bayne, S., & de Laat, M. (Eds.). (2016). Research, boundaries, and policy in networked learning. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Smay, D., & Walker, C. (2015). MakerSpaces. A creative approach to education. Teacher Librarian, 42(4), 39–43.Google Scholar
  27. Spiteri, M., & Chang Rundgren, S.-N. (2017). Maltese primary teachers’ digital competence: Implications for continuing professional development. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4), 521–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sullivan, M. (2015). Maker, thinker, hacker? Active learning spaces in K-12 libraries. Library Media Connection, 33(5), 16–17.Google Scholar
  29. Swedish National Agency for Education. (2018). https://www.skolverket.se/temasidor/digitalisering
  30. Vrieling, E., van den Beemt, A., & de Laat, M. (2016). What’s in a name: Dimensions of social learning in teacher groups. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 22, 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & de Laat, M. (2011). Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: A conceptual framework, Ruud de Moor Centrum. Heerlen, The Netherlands: Open University of the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  32. Yockey, M., & Donovan, M. A. (2015). Check this out: Maker spaces. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 43(3), 56–60.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Spante
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kristina Johansson
    • 1
  • Jimmy Jaldemark
    • 2
  1. 1.University WestTrollhättanSweden
  2. 2.Department of EducationMid Sweden UniversitySundsvallSweden

Personalised recommendations