Analyzing properties of success for assessment development in maker-based learning

IF 3.3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Etr&d-Educational Technology Research and Development Pub Date : 2023-10-30 DOI:10.1007/s11423-023-10286-1
Kailea Saplan, Sam Abramovich, Peter Wardrip
{"title":"Analyzing properties of success for assessment development in maker-based learning","authors":"Kailea Saplan, Sam Abramovich, Peter Wardrip","doi":"10.1007/s11423-023-10286-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Public libraries have embraced the popularity of maker education and makerspaces by integrating maker education in their program offerings, and by developing makerspaces that enable patrons to tinker and create products. But less attention has been paid to supporting librarians and maker educators in assessing the impact of these spaces. To expand assessment scholarship and practices related to public library makerspaces, we offer two contributions. First, we share findings from a qualitative research study in which we analyzed how 17 library staff and maker educators define success and identify evidence of success in their maker programs. The findings from that study, in conjunction with our collective experience as research partners working with public library makerspaces, laid the foundation for a series of analysis tools we developed to help stakeholders identify the assessment needs of such learning environments. The Properties of Success Analysis Tools (PSA Tools) represent our second contribution; these tools invite library staff and maker educators to reflect on and unpack their definitions of success in order to identify what features a relevant assessment tool should have.","PeriodicalId":48170,"journal":{"name":"Etr&d-Educational Technology Research and Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Etr&d-Educational Technology Research and Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10286-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Public libraries have embraced the popularity of maker education and makerspaces by integrating maker education in their program offerings, and by developing makerspaces that enable patrons to tinker and create products. But less attention has been paid to supporting librarians and maker educators in assessing the impact of these spaces. To expand assessment scholarship and practices related to public library makerspaces, we offer two contributions. First, we share findings from a qualitative research study in which we analyzed how 17 library staff and maker educators define success and identify evidence of success in their maker programs. The findings from that study, in conjunction with our collective experience as research partners working with public library makerspaces, laid the foundation for a series of analysis tools we developed to help stakeholders identify the assessment needs of such learning environments. The Properties of Success Analysis Tools (PSA Tools) represent our second contribution; these tools invite library staff and maker educators to reflect on and unpack their definitions of success in order to identify what features a relevant assessment tool should have.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
创客型学习评价开发的成功特征分析
公共图书馆已经接受了创客教育和创客空间的流行,通过将创客教育整合到他们的项目中,并通过开发创客空间,使顾客能够修补和创造产品。但是,在帮助图书馆员和创客教育者评估这些空间的影响方面,却很少受到关注。为了拓展与公共图书馆创客空间相关的评估学术和实践,我们提供了两项贡献。首先,我们分享了一项定性研究的结果,在这项研究中,我们分析了17名图书馆工作人员和创客教育者如何定义成功,并确定了他们的创客项目中成功的证据。这项研究的结果,结合我们作为研究伙伴与公共图书馆创客空间合作的集体经验,为我们开发的一系列分析工具奠定了基础,帮助利益相关者确定这种学习环境的评估需求。成功分析工具(PSA工具)的特性是我们的第二个贡献;这些工具邀请图书馆工作人员和创客教育者反思和解读他们对成功的定义,以确定相关评估工具应该具有哪些特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Etr&d-Educational Technology Research and Development
Etr&d-Educational Technology Research and Development EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
94
期刊介绍: Educational Technology Research and Development is the only scholarly journal in the field focusing entirely on research and development in educational technology. The Research Section assigns highest priority in reviewing manuscripts to rigorous original quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods studies on topics relating to applications of technology or instructional design in educational settings. Such contexts include K-12, higher education, and adult learning (e.g., in corporate training settings). Analytical papers that evaluate important research issues related to educational technology research and reviews of the literature on similar topics are also published. This section features well-documented articles on the practical aspects of research as well as applied theory in educational practice and provides a comprehensive source of current research information in instructional technology. The Development Section publishes research on planning, implementation, evaluation and management of a variety of instructional technologies and learning environments. Empirically based formative evaluations and theoretically based instructional design research papers are welcome, as are papers that report outcomes of innovative approaches in applying technology to instructional development. Papers for the Development section may involve a variety of research methods and should focus on one aspect of the instructional development process or more; when relevant and possible, papers should discuss the implications of instructional design decisions and provide evidence linking outcomes to those decisions. The Cultural and Regional Perspectives Section (formerly International Review) welcome s innovative research about how technologies are being used to enhance learning, instruction, and performance specific to a culture or region. Educational technology studies submitted to this section should be situated in cultural contexts that critically examine issues and ideologies prevalent in the culture or region or by individuals or groups in the culture or region. Theoretical perspectives can be broadly based and inclusive of research, such as critical race theory, cultural-historical activity theory, and cultural models. Papers published in this section include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods articles and reviews drawing on relevant theories, empirical evidence, and critical analyses of the findings, implications, and conclusions within a cultural context. Educational Technology Research and Development publishes special issues on timely topics of interest to the community, in addition to regular papers.
期刊最新文献
Exploring online authentic learning environment (OnALE) for inferential statistics: its efficacy and benefits to statistics learners Transforming teachers’ self-narratives about game-based learning Learning experience design (LXD) professional competencies: an exploratory job announcement analysis Conceptual and theoretical frameworks for leveraging makerspaces to encourage and retain underrepresented populations in STEM through learning by design Design principles to develop digital innovation skills: a design-based research approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1