Assessing learning in technology-rich maker activities: A systematic review of empirical research

被引:47
|
作者
Lin, Qiao [1 ]
Yin, Yue [1 ]
Tang, Xiaodan [2 ]
Hadad, Roxana [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Zhai, Xiaoming [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Illinois, 1040 West Harrison St, Chicago, IL 60607 USA
[2] Northwestern Univ, 625 Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
[3] NE Illinois Univ, 5500 North St Louis Ave, Chicago, IL 60625 USA
[4] Univ Calif Los Angeles, 405 Hilgard Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
[5] Univ Georgia, 110 Carlton St, Athens, GA 30602 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Maker activities; Learning communities; Teaching/learning strategies; Interdisciplinary projects; Evaluation methodologies; TEXTILES; MOVEMENT; STUDENTS; LIBRARY; 3D;
D O I
10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103944
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Maker activities are drawing increasing attention in the field of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Researchers have developed various assessments for maker activities to examine students' learning outcomes. However, a systematic review of research on such assessments is lacking. To fill this gap, we reviewed empirical studies on maker-based assessments in education. We systematically examined 60 studies regarding the overall features of the maker activities, the learning outcomes that were measured, the assessment formats, and the psychometric evidence of the assessments. Our review results indicate that more than 20 types of maker platforms have been employed in the activities, with e-textiles and LilyPad Arduino being the most popular. Five types of assessment tools have been used prevalently to examine students' diverse learning outcomes, specifically artifact assessments, tests, surveys, interviews, and observations. Most assessments are used in STEM-related maker activities, especially technologycentric activities, to measure STEM-related learning outcomes. Only 15% of the studies provide psychometric evidence of reliability and validity for the assessments. Based on the findings, we provide suggestions for future research which include developing more low-tech maker activities for students in lower-grades and with lower technology proficiency. In addition, future studies should improve rubrics for artifact assessment and explore more assessment tools for non-STEM subjects.
引用
收藏
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The processes of maker learning and information behavior in a technology-rich high school class
    Koh, Kyungwon
    Snead, John T.
    Lu, Kun
    JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2019, 70 (12) : 1395 - 1412
  • [2] Profiles of technology-rich learning activities for early literacy and teachers' roles in Korea
    No, Boram
    COGENT EDUCATION, 2025, 12 (01):
  • [3] Students as co-creators of technology-rich learning activities in higher education
    Begoña Gros
    Marta López
    International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13
  • [4] Teachers as co-designers of technology-rich learning activities for early literacy
    Cviko, Amina
    McKenney, Susan
    Voogt, Joke
    TECHNOLOGY PEDAGOGY AND EDUCATION, 2015, 24 (04) : 443 - 459
  • [5] Students as co-creators of technology-rich learning activities in higher education
    Gros, Begona
    Lopez, Marta
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2016, 13
  • [6] Designs for Teaching and Learning in Technology-Rich Learning Environments
    Lund, Andreas
    Hauge, Trond Eiliv
    NORDIC JOURNAL OF DIGITAL LITERACY, 2011, 6 (04) : 258 - 272
  • [7] Editorial: Advancing posthumanist perspectives on technology-rich learning
    Peppler, Kylie
    Rowsell, Jennifer
    Keune, Anna
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 51 (04) : 1240 - 1245
  • [8] Frustration in technology-rich learning environments: A scale for assessing student frustration with e-textbooks
    Novak, Elena
    McDaniel, Kerrie
    Daday, Jerry
    Soyturk, Ilker
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2022, 53 (02) : 408 - 431
  • [9] Student response to a technology-rich cooperative learning environment
    Utschig, Tristan T.
    36th Annual Frontiers in Education, Conference Program, Vols 1-4: BORDERS: INTERNATIONAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL, 2006, : 1573 - 1577
  • [10] Technology-rich activities: One type does not motivate all
    Chen, Jason A.
    Star, Jon R.
    Dede, Chris
    Tutwiler, M. Shane
    CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2018, 54 : 153 - 170