Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Maker Competency Instrument for Elementary and Secondary School Science

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, the Maker Competency Instrument (MCI) was developed to diagnose the level of Maker Competence of elementary and secondary students in South Korea. First, in this study, a draft of the test tool was adapted based on the Maker Competency Model developed as part of Yoon et al.’s research (2018). Then, two expert-level Delphi surveys examined the content validity of the MCI. To verify the construct’s validity, the exploratory factor analysis and the confirmatory factor analysis were conducted in two separate stages with the involvement of both teachers and professional Makers. As a result, it was confirmed by the MCI that 6 higher-order factors (Making mind, Making practice, collaboration, visual thinking, human-orientation, integrated thinking), 19 lower-order factors (observation, sense of challenge, interest in various areas, pleasure of the making process, understanding programming, understanding electricity, information searching, direct execution, understanding production tools, planning, hand knowledge, conflict management, communication, sharing, visual thinking and insight, humanity, user-oriented, analytical thinking, intuitive thinking), and 57 items were reasonable. From the outcome of this paper, it can be deduced that the MCI can be used from elementary to secondary school due to its proven reliability and validity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

  • Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference. Future of Learning Group Publication, 5(3), 438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. (2012). Makers. The new industrial revolution. Crown Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnheim, R. (2004). Visual thinking (35th anniversary printing). Faber and Faber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of making in science education. Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1275380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein, P., & Worsley, M. (2016). Children are not hackers: Building a culture of powerful ideas, deep learning, and equity in the maker movement. In K. Peppler, E. R. Halverson & Y. B. Kafai (Eds.), Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (pp. Vol. 1, pp. 64–79). New York: New York, NY: Routledge.

  • Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of invention. FabLabs: Of Machines. Makers and Inventors, 4, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brahms, L. (2014). Making as a learning process: Identifying and supporting family learning in informal settings (Publication No. 3582510 [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh]. Retrieved from ProQuest.

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage Focus Editions, 8(3), 136–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullock, S. M., & Sator, A. (2018). Developing a pedagogy of “Making” through collaborative self-study. Studying Teacher Education, 14(1), 56–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullock, S. M., & Sator, A. J. (2015). Maker pedagogy and science teacher education. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 13(1), 60–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (2013). A first course in factor analysis. Psychology press.

  • Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(1), 7.

  • Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 7(3), 11–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D. D. (1993). Competency-based performance improvement: A strategy for organizational change. HRD Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutwill, J. P., Hido, N., & Sindorf, L. (2015). Research to practice: Observing learning in tinkering activities. Curator: the Museum Journal, 58(2), 151–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2009). Análise multivariada de dados. Bookman Editora.

  • Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, S. (2000). The criteria for selecting appropriate fit indices in structural equation modeling and their rationales. Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 19(1), 161–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, T.-C., & Lin, C.-Y. (2017). From 3D modeling to 3D printing: Development of a differentiated spatial ability teaching model. Telematics and Informatics, 34(2), 604–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y., Fields, D., & Searle, K. (2014). Electronic textiles as disruptive designs: Supporting and challenging maker activities in schools. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 532–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y., Peppler, K., & Chapman, R. (2009). The computer clubhouse: Constructionism and creativity in youth communities. Technology, Education–Connections: ERIC.

  • Kapon, S., Schvartzer, M., & Peer, T. (2020). Forms of participation in an engineering maker-based inquiry in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K. (2010). Structural equation model analysis. Seoul: Hannarae.

  • Kim, Y. J. (2012). Development and validation of the leisure engagement scale in Korean. The Korean Journal of Physical Education, 51(5), 549–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kishton, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling of questionnaire items: An empirical example. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 757–765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity. (2015). Monthly scientific creative. April 2015 Issue. Seoul: KOFAC.

  • Krzystofiak, F., Cardy, R. L., & Newman, J. (1988). Implicit personality and performance appraisal: The influence of trait inferences on evaluations of behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. H., Seo, W. S., Gao, H. Y., Jo, D. H., & Seo, J. Y. (2016). Developing competencies for human resources in science and technology using the Delphi technique. Journal of Engineering Education Research, 16(2), 252–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. (2002). Understanding factor analysis. Seoul: Seogjeong.

  • Lin, Q., Yin, Y., Tang, X., Hadad, R., & Zhai, X. (2020). Assessing learning in technology-rich maker activities: A systematic review of empirical research. Computers & Education, 157, 103944.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lotts, M. (2016). On the road, playing with Legos®, and learning about the library: The rutgers university art library lego playing station, Part Two. Journal of Library Administration, 56(5), 499–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. (2010). Design thinking: Achieving insights via the “knowledge funnel.” Strategy & Leadership, 38(2), 37–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn Torrance. Constructing modern knowledge press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., Fensham, P., & Chaiklin, S. (1994). A nobel’s eye view of scientific intuition: Discussions with the nobel prize-winners in physics, chemistry and medicine (1970–86). International Journal of Science Education, 16(4), 457–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grade K-8. National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12635

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, A. (2014). Make-her-spaces as hybrid places: Designing and resisting self-constructions in urban classrooms. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(1), 63–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2017). Empirical studies on the maker movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review. Entertainment Computing, 18, 57–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G., & Comrey, A. L. (2000). Factor analysis and scale revision. Psychological Assessment, 12(3), 287–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. In M. Honey & D. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 163–181). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., & Silverman, B. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riggs, W. E. (1983). The Delphi technique: An experimental evaluation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 23(89), 94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos, J. R. A. (1999). Cronbach’s alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal of Extension, 37(2), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sass, D. A., & Smith, P. L. (2006). The effects of parceling unidimensional scales on structural parameter estimates in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(4), 566–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schad, M., & Jones, W. M. (2020). The maker movement and education: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(1), 65–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work. John Wiley & Sons. Inc: P99–220.

  • Tak, J. K. (2007). Psychological testing: An understanding of development and evaluation method (2nd ed.). Hakjisa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, A. (2014). Making makers: Kids, tools, and the future of innovation. Maker Media, Inc.

  • Vossoughi, S., Hooper, P. K., & Escudé, M. (2016). Making through the lens of culture and power: Toward transformative visions for educational equity. Harvard Educational Review, 86(2), 206–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B., Onsman, A., & Brown, T. (2010). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 8(3), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, B., Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (2004). The construct of the learning organization: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(1), 31–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, H., & Kang, S. (2016). Study on the development of a core competency model for the convergent gifted. The Korean Society for Gifted and Talented, 15, 93–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, J., Kim, K., & Kang, S. (2018). Developing maker competency model and exploring maker education plan in the field of elementary and secondary education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(5), 649–665.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Elementary Science Education, Korea National University of Education, Cheongju, South Korea

    Heesun Yang & Kyung Kim

  2. Department of Pedagogy, Dankook University, Yongin, South Korea

    Jihyun Yoon

  3. Department of Chemistry Education, Korea National University of Education, Taeseongtabyeon-Ro, Gangnae-Myeon, Heungdeok-Gu, Cheongju-Si, Chungcheongbuk-Do, 28173 250, South Korea

    Seong-Joo Kang

Authors
  1. Heesun Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jihyun Yoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kyung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Seong-Joo Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seong-Joo Kang.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 177 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, H., Yoon, J., Kim, K. et al. Maker Competency Instrument for Elementary and Secondary School Science. J Sci Educ Technol 32, 493–509 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10037-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10037-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation