Assessing learning in technology-rich maker activities: A systematic review of empirical research. (November 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lin, Qiao; Yin, Yue; Tang, Xiaodan; Hadad, Roxana; Zhai, Xiaoming
• Is Part Of: Computers & education. Volume 157(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-11
• Subjects: Maker activities -- Learning communities -- Teaching/learning strategies -- Interdisciplinary projects -- Evaluation methodologies; Education -- Data processing -- Periodicals; Education -- Periodicals; Computers -- Periodicals; Computer-Assisted Instruction -- Periodicals; Éducation -- Informatique -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 370.285
• DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103944
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0360-1315

Abstract

Abstract: 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 technology-centric 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. Highlights: More than 20 types of maker platforms have been employed in the maker activities. Five types of assessment tools are prevalently used to examine students' diverse learning outcomes. Most assessments were used in STEM-related maker activities to measure STEM-related learning outcomes. Future studies should explore more assessment tools to measure all kinds of learning outcomes in maker activities.