CHI TIẾT NGHIÊN CỨU …
Tiêu đề
If you build it, will they come? Student preferences for Makerspace environments in higher education
Tác giả
Hynes M.M.; Hynes W.J.
Năm xuất bản
2018
Source title
International Journal of Technology and Design Education
Số trích dẫn
48
DOI
10.1007/s10798-017-9412-5
Liên kết
Tóm tắt
The Maker Movement inspires people to express their creativity by making things in a self-directed and, often, collaborative learning endeavor. The excitement of the movement has spurred the development of various types of Makerspaces across the United States and the World to further enable people to make and innovate. The education community has recognized the potential for Makerspaces as learning environments that can foster interdisciplinary collaboration and self-directed learning. As such, there is much excitement to create Makerspaces within K-12 schools, libraries, colleges and universities. However, contrary to the formal design process used to build many school facilities, successful grass-roots makerspaces are most often created when those with like-minded interests come together and adapt the building around them to fit their needs. The research in this paper focuses on the design of such spaces by applying the environmental preferences predictors psychology construct. The study surveyed 276 students from art and design, engineering, and liberal arts majors to better understand their preferences as related to images of eight different Makerspaces. The results are broken down by the four predictors of preference, major, and gender. The results highlight differences among the images along with design considerations for creating spaces that welcome a broader audience. © 2017, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
Từ khóa
Design education; Engineering education; Interior design; Makerspace; Preference matrix
Tài liệu tham khảo
Baichtal J., Maker pro: Essays on making a living as a maker, (2014); (2016); Bandura A., Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, (1997); (2016); (2016); Barrett T., Pizzico M., Levy B.D., Nagel R.L., Linsey J.S., Talley K.G., Forest C.R., Newstetter W.C., A review of university maker spaces, Proceedings of Annual Conference of American Society of Engineering Education, (2015); Bettman J.R., Luce M.F., Payne J.W., Preference construction and preference stability: Putting the pillow to rest, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18, 3, pp. 170-174, (2008); Brandt C.B., Cennamo K., Douglas S., Vernon M., McGrath M., Reimer Y., A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23, 2, pp. 329-348, (2013); Chachra D., Why I am Not a Maker, (2015); Crowther P., Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for its technological enhancement, Journal of Learning Design, 6, 3, pp. 18-28, (2013); Day L.L., Placemaking by design: Fitting a large new building into a historic district, Environment and Behavior, 24, 3, pp. 326-346, (1992); Doorley S., Witthoft S., Make space: How to set the stage for creative collaboration, (2012); Dougherty D., The maker mindset, Design, Make, Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators, pp. 7-11, (2013); Dym C.L., Agogino A.M., Eris O., Frey D.D., Leifer L.J., Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning, Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 1, pp. 103-120, (2005); Espey M., Does space matter? Classroom design and team-based learning, Review of Agricultural Economics, 30, 4, pp. 764-775, (2008); (2016); (2016); Feldman J.M., Lynch J.G., Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 3, (1988); Goodsell C.T., The concept of public space and its democratic manifestations, The American Review of Public Administration, 33, 4, pp. 361-383, (2003); Hadim H.A., Esche S.K., Enhancing the engineering curriculum through project-based learning, In Frontiers in Education, 2002, (2002); Hatch M., The maker movement manifesto: rules for innovation in the new world of crafters, hackers, and tinkerers, (2013); Herzog T.R., Gray L.E., Dunville A.M., Hicks A.M., Gilson E.A., Preference and tranquility for houses of worship, Environment and Behavior, 45, 4, pp. 504-525, (2011); Herzog T.R., Gray L.E., Dunville A.M., Hicks A.M., Gilson E.A., Preference and tranquility for houses of worship, Environment and Behavior, 45, 4, pp. 504-526, (2013); Herzog T.R., Shier R.L., Complexity, age, and building preference, Environment and Behavior, 32, 4, pp. 557-575, (2000); Hlubinka M., Dougherty D., Thomas P., Chang S., Hoefer S., Alexander I., McGuire D., Makerspace playbook: School edition, (2013); (2016); Ikemi M., The effects of mystery on preference for residential facades, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 2, pp. 167-173, (2005); Kaplan S., Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolution perspective, Environment and Behavior, 19, 1, pp. 3-32, (1987); Kent R.L., The role of mystery in preferences for shopping malls, Landscape Journal, 8, 1, pp. 28-35, (1989); Knight D.W., Carlson L.E., Sullivan J., Improving engineering student retention through hands-on, team based, first-year design projects, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Research in Engineering Education, (2007); (2016); (2016); Marra R.M., Palmer B., Litzinger T.A., The effects of a first-year engineering design course on student intellectual development as measured by the perry scheme, Journal of Engineering Education, 89, 1, pp. 39-45, (2000); Martinez S., Stager G., Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom, (2013); McCoy J.M., Evans G.W., The potential role of the physical environment in fostering creativity, Creativity Research Journal, 14, 3-4, pp. 409-426, (2002); (2016); (2016); (2016); Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2013, (2013); (2016); (2016); Payne J.W., Bettman J.R., Schkade D.A., Schwarz N., Gregory R., Measuring constructed preferences: Towards a building code, Elicitation of Preferences, pp. 243-275, (1999); Peppler K., Bender S., Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time, Phi Delta Kappan, 95, 3, pp. 22-27, (2013); (2016); Rands M.L., Gansemer-Topf A.M., The room itself is active: How classroom design impacts student engagement, Journal of Learning Spaces, 6, 1, pp. 26-33, (2017); Scott S.C., Complexity and mystery as predictors of interior preferences, Journal of Interior Design, 19, 1, pp. 25-33, (1993); Scott S.C., Visual attributes related to preference in interior environments, Journal of Interior Design, 18, 1-2, pp. 7-16, (1993); Self J.A., Baek J.S., Interdisciplinarity in design education: Understanding the undergraduate student experience, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, (2016); Simonson I., Regarding inherent preferences, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18, 3, pp. 191-196, (2008); Slovic P., The construction of preference, American Psychologist, 50, 5, (1995); (2016); Van der Jagt A.P., Craig T., Anable J., Brewer M.J., Pearson D.G., Unearthing the picturesque: The validity of the preference matrix as a measure of landscape aesthetics, Landscape and Urban Planning, 124, pp. 1-13, (2014); Zavotka S.L., Characteristics that influence individuals’ preferences for levels of complexity in interior design furnishings, Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 23, 4, pp. 393-408, (1995); Zube E.H., Simcox D.E., Law C.S., Perceptual landscape simulations: History and prospect, Landscape Journal, 6, 1, pp. 62-80, (1987)
Nơi xuất bản
Springer Netherlands
Hình thức xuất bản
Article
Open Access
Nguồn
Scopus