MAKEITREAL PROJECTmakeitreal.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Int...MAKEITREAL Project Erasmus+ KA2 2016-1-PL01-KA201-026492 . 6 . Chapter 2: Pre and post test . The purpose of pre-

MAKEITREAL PROJECT

Addressing underachievement in STEAM education through real product design and making practices

Erasmus+ KA2 2016-1-PL01-KA201-026492

Interim Evaluation Report

based on the 1st pilot in Greece

Lead Partner: Warsaw University of Technology (WUT)

Authors: Rene Alimisi (Edumotiva), Stavroula Misthou (Edumotiva)

Circulation: Public

Version: 02

Stage: Final

Date: August 2017

MAKEITREAL Project Erasmus+ KA2 2016-1-PL01-KA201-026492

2

Contributions

Dimitris Alimisis (EDUMOTIVA)

George Fragkakis (DIDE A’ ATHINAS)

Declaration

This report has been prepared in the context of the MakeITReal project. Where other published and

unpublished source materials have been used, these have been acknowledged.

Copyright

© Copyright 2016 - 2018 the MakeITReal Consortium

All rights reserved.

This document is licensed to the public under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-

ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Funding Disclaimer

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This communication

reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use

which may be made of the information contained therein.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/




3

Table of Contents

Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 4

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................ 5

Chapter 2: Pre and post test ....................................................................................... 6

2.1 Students’ interests in different school subjects including STEAM ................................ 6

2.2 School experiences .................................................................................................... 11

2.3 STEAM profiles ........................................................................................................... 13

2.3.1 Maths .............................................................................................................. 13

2.3.2 Science ........................................................................................................... 15

2.3.3 Technology/Engineering ................................................................................. 17

2.3.4 21st century skills ............................................................................................ 18

2.3.5 Arts ................................................................................................................. 20

2.4 Students’ perceptions and plans for the future ........................................................... 22

Chapter 3: Feedback generated by the students ....................................................... 25

Chapter 4: Feedback generated by the participant teachers ..................................... 29

4.1 Working on the three projects ..................................................................................... 30

4.2 Learning intervention impact ....................................................................................... 31

4.3 Supporting resources and training .............................................................................. 34

Chapter 5: Conclusion ............................................................................................... 36

References ................................................................................................................... 38

Appendix ....................................................................................................................... 39


4

Abstract

This report presents and discusses the main findings, conclusions and recommendations of a small-

scale study that took place in Greece and was conducted in the context of the MakeITReal project

“Addressing underachievement in STEAM education through real product design and making

practices” (Erasmus+ Project id: Erasmus+ KA2 2016-1-PL01-KA201-026492). MakeITReal

project aims at engaging school students (13-17 years old) that demonstrate low performance in

STEM education and keep distance from STEM related disciplines in three-dimensional object

creation following the Maker Movement trend in education, a global drive that encourages young

people to be creative with technology.

The purpose of this small-scale study is to see how the MakeITReal learning intervention was

perceived by the participant teachers and secondary school students as well as to identify any possible

signs of change in students’ attitudes and behaviours towards STEAM disciplines. This report

presents and summarizes the feedback retrieved by twelve (12) secondary school students and three

secondary school teachers.

The report is organised into five sections: Chapter 1: gives the background, purpose and framing of

this small-scale study; Chapter 2: presents students’ responses in the pre-and post- survey; Chapter

3: presents students’ feedback after the MakeITReal workshop; Chapter 4: focuses on participant

teachers’ experiences and comments related to the impact of the MakeITReal learning intervention;

and last Chapter 5: pulls out key issues and findings.


5

Chapter 1: Introduction

MakeITReal project aims at engaging school students (13-17 years old) that demonstrate low

performance in STEM education and keep distance from STEM related disciplines in three-

dimensional object creation following the Maker Movement trend in education, a global drive that

encourages young people to be creative with technology. In the context of the MakeITReal project,

the 1st pilot phase with students took place in Greece from March to May 2017.

This report presents the results of a small-scale study that was conducted with twelve secondary

school students 14-16 years old and three (3) secondary school teachers in the 23rd junior high school

of Athens (DIDE A’ Athinas) (Greece) in the context of the 1st pilot phase that lasted approximately

3 months. During this 3-month period the students were introduced in 3D modelling and 3D printing

tasks through three projects entitled “geometrical solids”, “the keychain” and “the penguin project”

(see the MakeITReal online class and [1][2][3]); the three projects aimed at smoothly introducing

students in the selected CAD software, providing opportunities to familiarise with the challenges

underpinning design and the process of 3D printing.

The students were selected based on the guidelines provided in the pilot protocol (Output 3) [4].

Before and after the MakeITReal workshop, the participant students were encouraged to complete

pre- and post-tests [5] to see how the learning intervention impacted on participants’ perceptions

towards STEAM The pre-test is a set of questions and statements given to the students before the

learning intervention began in order to determine their interests, attitudes and performance. After the

completion of the learning intervention, students were given a post-test to answer the same set of

questions. Comparing participants’ post-test feedback to their pre-test feedback enables us to see

whether the learning intervention was successful in increasing participant interest in STEAM and

enhancing their performance in STEAM related disciplines. The comparison of the two tests is

described and discussed in Chapter 2:.

When the learning intervention was over, the students were also encouraged to fill in an in-class

feedback form that takes the form of an online questionnaire [6]. The questionnaire includes mainly

open questions that explore students’ good and bad experiences and look at the impact of the learning

intervention on their learning and their motivation towards STEAM. Chapter 3 presents and

summarizes students’ feedback.

The participant teachers provided their feedback and revealed more information about the

MakeITReal learning intervention through an online questionnaire that included both closed and

open questions [7]. For the completion of the questionnaire the teachers needed to check their log

files, field notes and other useful records that they may have kept during the pilot phase. They were

highly encouraged to reflect upon their experience and to provide the MakeITReal team with

feedback that could inform the 2nd pilot phase. Teachers’ comments raised during C2 training activity

(that took place in Cyprus on June 19-23, 2017) were also exploited and used to support conclusion

remarks.

The report is organised into five sections:

• Chapter 1 gives the background, purpose and framing of this small-scale study;

• Chapter 2 presents students’ responses in the pre and post survey;

• Chapter 3 presents students’ feedback after the MakeITReal workshop;

• Chapter 4 focuses on participant teachers’ experiences and comments related to the impact

of the MakeITReal learning intervention;

• Chapter 5 emphasizes the key issues and findings

• Pictures taken during the deployment of the pilot are available in the appendix


6

Chapter 2: Pre and post test

The purpose of pre- and post- questionnaires is to examine students’ opinions, experiences, skills

and attitudes towards STEAM before and after the 1st pilot. The MakeITReal questionnaire [5]

contains closed-response items that fall into five categories: 1) General information 2) Interest in

different school subject including STEAM 3) School experiences 4) STEAM profiles 5) Students’

perceptions and future plans. The same (pre- & post-) online questionnaires were distributed to

twelve (12) students (13-15 years old) of a public junior high school in Athens. Pre- and post- data

are collected and analyzed to examine the effect of the 1st MakeITReal pilot intervention on students’

perceptions in STEAM related disciplines.

In summary, it was perceived that the MakeITReal learning intervention had a positive impact on

students’ interest in STEAM. The results of the pre- and post-survey is a good indication that the

MakeITReal learning intervention is achieving the goals set towards steering students’ motivation in

STEAM disciplines. The students appear to be inspired by their recent MakeITReal experience and

they tend to re-consider their opinions as far as STEM is concerned, to understand the spectrum of

things that they can do while being involved in STEM activities and to negotiate positively their

engagement in these subjects. Although these are encouraging signs, we are aware of the fact that

these signs may denote the beginning of the adoption of a new attitude but cannot guarantee it.

There is also a good indication that the link between STEM and real life was enhanced; however,

students’ responses show that there is still room for further initiatives (at school level) with a focus

on linking school practices in STEM with real and daily life as well as with creative activities. In

addition, the students appear to be more confident as far as their problem solving, decision making

and presentation and communication skills are concerned. Again, there is still room for improvement

and the question that is raised in how we can exploit their already documented confidence and further

enhance it.

Last, The MakeITReal learning experience appears also to have the potential to inspire young

students in making STEAM a future career choice. Noteworthy, a number of other conditions should

be also met (teacher and parent support, continuous stimulation etc) but a basis whereupon STEAM

can be seen as a future career choice has been set and it is worth investing on it and supporting

properly the students to explore meaningfully the world of STEAM.

The sections below present in detail students’ feedback in the pre- and post- test.

2.1 Students’ interests in different school subjects including STEAM

This section presents and discusses students’ responses to a set of questions that aim at exploring

students’ interests in STEAM subjects. In the beginning, the participant students were asked to select

up to 3 subjects that they are the most interested in. The table below (see Table 1) demonstrates

students’ preferences as these were reported on the pre-survey. Table 2 shows students’ preferences

after their exposure to the MakeITReal workshop. Comparing their preferences, one can see a

significant increase in Algebra and Geometry interest, from three (3) students to six (6) out of twelve

(12) in Algebra and from one (1) student to four (4) out of twelve (12) in Geometry.


7

Table 1. Students’ responses in the Pre-Questionnaire

Table 2. Students’ responses in the Post Questionnaire

Then the students were moved to select up to 3 subjects that they are the least interested in.

Table 3 demonstrates participants’ preferences as these were documented in the pre-survey; Table 4

demonstrates respondents’ choices after the conduction of the MakeITReal workshop. Noteworthy,

a significant decrease appears in Algebra and Geometry dislike, from six (6) to three (3) and from

three (3) to one (1) respectively. These findings are consistent with those of the previous question

and indicate the positive influence of the MakeITReal learning intervention on students’ interest in

the area of mathematics. However, it is worth noting that there is no sign, so far, that this positive

tendency can necessarily inspire a positive long-lasting engagement in Math. A set of additional

conditions and criteria should be also met in order to ensure a long-lasting interest and engagement.


8

Table 3. Students’ responses in the pre-questionnaire: “Select the subjects that you are the least interested in”

Table 4. Students’ responses in the post-questionnaire: “Select the subjects that you are the least interested in”

The students were then asked directly to express the extent to which they are interested in Science,

Maths, Arts and Engineering/ Technology. An easy to grasp explanation has been provided for

each subject/thematic area and the class teacher has been also informed to provide clarifications in

case needed. Firstly, the students were asked about the thematic area of Science. The tables below

(see Table 5 and Table 6) demonstrate students’ responses. It was noticed that after the 1st pilot,

students’ interest in Science has been increased (given that the number of students that are either

interested or very interested in Science was increased significantly). In the same sense, it is also

encouraging that the number of students that have stated that they do not like Science was

significantly decreased after the completion of MakeITReal workshop.


9

Table 5. Responses in the pre-questionnaire: To what extent are you interested in Science?

Table 6. Responses in the post-questionnaire: To what extent are you interested in Science?

It is worth mentioning that after the MakeITReal intervention students’ interest in Maths has been

slightly increased: the total number of students that are either interested or very interested in Maths

is now ten (10) out of twelve (12). It is also worth noting that there are not any students that report

to be not at all interested in Maths. This is an encouraging sign but not itself adequate for a long-

lasting engagement in Maths. However, the fact that there is “somewhat” more increased interest

indicates the need for more activities that are real, relevant and meaningful for the students.

Table 7. To what extent are interested in Maths [Pre]?

Table 8. To what extent are interested in Maths [Post]?

Students’ interest in Arts was also explored before and after the workshop. As it appears (see Table

9 and Table 10) the students’ interest in Arts remained very high. An interesting question to answer

is how we exploit their interest and meaningfully infuse Arts into their 3D projects? Another

emerging topic for discussion is how we can encourage project extensions that allow students to

express their artistic skills.


10

Table 9. To what extent are you interested in Arts [Pre]?

Table 10. To what extent are you interested in Arts [Post]?

Students’ interest in Engineering and Technology was also explored before and after the

MakeITReal workshop. It was perceived, that the number of students that reported a high level of

interest in Engineering and Technology was almost duplicated after the MakeITReal learning

intervention; this is an encouraging sign that the students inspired by their recent experience and

started to re-consider their opinions as far as Engineering and Technology is concerned; does this

result denote the beginning of the adoption of a new attitude or does this simply mean that during the

workshop they started realizing the spectrum of things that they can do while being involved in the

thematic area of Engineering and Technology? It is hard to address a clear answer but it seems that

the students recognized that the MakeITReal learning intervention was bringing aspects of

engineering on the stage whereupon meaningful for them activities can be suggested.

Table 11 To what extent are you interested in Engineering and Technology [Pre]?

Table 12. To what extent are you interested in Engineering and Technology [Post]?


11

2.2 School experiences The questions in this section aim at shading light into students’ school experiences with an emphasis

on STEM activities in the school, opportunities for creativity, expression of artistic skills and

reflection upon STEM connections to real life. The first question focused on how often they get

examples of how the things they learn in Math & Science matter in the real world. Table 13

shows students’ responses before the MakeITReal workshop and Table 14 shows their responses

after the MakeITReal workshop. Students’ responses show that there is still room for further

initiatives (at school level) that can help students realize that the things that they learn in Maths and

Science matter in real and daily life.

Table 13. How often do you get examples of how the things you learn in Math & Science matter in the real world [Pre]?

Table 14. How often do you get examples of how the things you learn in Math & Science matter in the real world [Post]?

The answers gathered in question 4.4 (see Table 13) show students’ thoughts on the opportunities

that they are offered in school to express or replenish their creativity. In the pre-survey, the

respondents highlighted that only sometimes (5 students out of 12) or rarely (4 out of 12) they have

the chance to be creative in school (see table below). The distribution of their responses changes in

the post-survey (see Table 16). The feedback provided by the students shows that the last three

months they were offered with slightly more opportunities to express or replenish their creativity in

the school. Noteworthy, there is still room for improvement and this constitutes a challenge for the

MakeITReal team: can we design additional creative learning experiences for students in order to

show them that creativity operates across many disciplines including STEM?

Table 15. How often you are given opportunities to express or replenish your creativity [Pre]?


12

Table 16. How often you are given opportunities to express or replenish your creativity [Post]?

The participant students were also queried how often they are allowed to use artistic methods

to show their understanding of a concept/event/object. The feedback provided in the pre-survey

can be found in Table 17. Table 18 indicates that in the post-survey, two (2) students stated that only

sometimes are allowed to use artistic methods to show their understanding of a concept, while almost

half of them (7 out of 12) stated that this happens rarely. With “rarely” as the dominating answer, a

new challenge is set for the MakeITReal team. To what extent the MakeITReal activities can infuse

Arts in the learning experiences? To what extent can the MakeITReal team support teachers in using

artistic methods to enhance their teaching and the learning procedure? To what extent Arts can be

used as tools for demonstrating understanding?

Table 17 How often you are allowed to use artistic methods to show their understanding of a concept/event/object [Pre]?

Table 18. How often you are allowed to use artistic methods to show their understanding of a concept/event/object

[Post]?

The next question that was addressed to the students aimed at exploring how often students talk

about the types of jobs and careers that use Science and Math while in school. The table below

(Table 19) illustrates the distribution of responses to the relevant question before MakeITReal

workshop. Most of the students answered that they talked about jobs based on Math and Science

either rarely or sometimes (11 out of 12). Table 20 demonstrates students’ responses after the

MakeITReal pilot. More precisely, eight (8) students out of twelve (12) reported that this discussion

takes place “sometimes”, two (2) students chose rarely; only one (1) student answered that this occurs

frequently/always. Based on the aforementioned feedback, it seems that students’ experience on this

matter has slightly improved. However, findings show that there is still room for additional


13

improvement; it is worth rethinking how MakeITReal could motivate teachers and students to include

a professional and scientific dimension in the educational agenda.

Table 19. How often you talk about the types of jobs and careers that use Science and Math while in school [Pre]?

Table 20. How often you talk about the types of jobs and careers that use Science and Math while in school [Post]?

2.3 STEAM profiles This section presents students’ responses before and after the MakeITReal workshop on a set of

statements that move the students to reflect upon their performance, perceptions and feelings in

relation to Maths, Science, Engineering/Technology, Arts and the 21st century skills. These five (5)

core thematic areas are exploited to help us shade light into the students’ profile in STEAM. The

students were invited to state the extent to which they agree or disagree on each statement.

2.3.1 Maths

First, the students were invited to express the extent to which they agree or disagree to a set of

statements related to the discipline of Maths on a five-point scale from ' disagree' to ‘agree’. Question

5.2 focuses on the extent to which the students agree with the statement “I think learning math will

help me in my daily life”. Comparing students’ responses between pre-survey (see Table 21) and

post-survey (see Table 22), an optimistic shift is observed that shows that students started rethinking

the practical applicability of Maths. The way that this shift occurred also show that there are students

(4 out of 12) in the process of the reconsideration; not in position to address a clear agreement and

disagreement at this stage.

Table 21. Responses in the pre-questionnaire: I think learning math will help me in my daily life [Pre]


14

Table 22. Responses in the post-questionnaire: I think learning math will help me in my daily life [Post]

Another interesting question moves the students to indicate their confidence when they are doing

Math. The table below (see Table 23) demonstrates participants’ answers in the pre-survey: five (5)

of the participant students (5 out of 12) stated that they “somewhat agree”. Three (3) students

expressed their confidence in Maths by choosing “Agree” while two (2) students chose “Disagree”.

After the MakeITReal workshop (see Table), two (2) more students out of twelve (12), stated that

they are sure of themselves when they do Math. No safe conclusions can be drawn by looking into

the tables Table 23 and Table 24. A positive message is that they were no students (in the post-

survey) that reported absence of confidence when they are engaged in mathematical tasks.

Table 23. Responses in the pre-questionnaire: I am sure of myself when I do Math [Pre]

Table 24. Responses in the post-questionnaire: I am sure of myself when I do Math [Post]

The students were also queried whether they find Math hard. Feedback retrieved in the pre-survey

and the post- survey can be found in Table 25 and Table 26. Beyond all dispute, it was not expected

that after the 1st pilot, the fear and the prejudice towards Maths would have been eliminated.

However, it is satisfactory that at this stage there are no student that totally agree that Math is hard.

It is worth also focusing on the four (4) students that do not address an explicit answer; Is this an

indication that re-thinking and re-consideration in on? A secure answer cannot be easily addressed,

but it worth observing how the opinions of these students are being further formed given a stimulating

educational context towards STEM.


15

Table 25. Responses in the pre-questionnaire: Math is hard for me [Pre]

Table 26. Responses in the post-questionnaire: Math is hard for me [Post]

2.3.2 Science

The students were also invited to express the extent to which they agree or disagree to a set of

statements related to the discipline of Science on a five-point scale from ' disagree' to ‘agree’.The

first statement to comment on was: “I enjoy doing science”. Table 27 shows students’ responses

before the workshop and Table 28 demonstrates students’ responses after the workshop. As it

appears, the number of students interested in doing Science increased by two (2) after the 1st pilot.

It seems that a positive atmosphere concerning Science had been created during the MakeITReal

workshop.

Table 27. Responses in the post-questionnaire: Math is hard for me [Pre]

Table 28. Responses in the post-questionnaire: Math is hard for me [Post]


16

The students were also queried about the extent to which the agree that Science is hard for them.

Students’ responses before and after the MakeITReal intervention collected and displayed in the

following tables (see Table 29 and Table 30). Although it is encouraging that the number of students

that find Science hard turned to zero after the MakeITReal intervention, when comparing pre- and

post- questionnaires there is no safe evidence that a significant change in students’ perceptions

occurred.

Table 29. Responses in the pre-questionnaire: Science is hard for me [Pre]

Table 30. Responses in the post-questionnaire: Science is hard for me [Post]

The students were also encouraged to comment on the following statement: “Science is boring”.

Students answers are summarised in the following tables (see Table 31 and Table 32); it is worth

noting that the number of students that disagree with this statement has been increased after the pilot.

Does this mean that the MakeITReal intervention help students see Science under a more creative

prism? The signs are encouraging but more research may help us understand the stimulation towards

this shift.

Table 31. Responses in the pre-questionnaire: Science is boring [Pre]

Table 32. Responses in the post-questionnaire: Science is boring [Post]


17

2.3.3 Technology/Engineering


statements related to the discipline of Technology and Engineering on a five-point scale from '

disagree' to ‘agree’. The students were asked to what extent they agreed to this statement: “I like to

imagine creating new products”. In the following table (Table 33), you can see the distribution of

students’ answers during the pre-survey. The majority of the participants (9 out of 12) stated that

they like to imagine new products. Table 34 confirms students’ post-workshop interest in the creation

of new products. More precisely there was no answer that denotes disagreement and nine (9) out of

twelve (12) respondents steadily state that they like to imagine new products.

Table 33. Responses in the pre-questionnaire: I like to imagine creating new products [Pre]

Table 34. Responses in the post-questionnaire: I like to imagine creating new products [Post]

The students were also queried about their confidence in using knowledge from Math and Science

to design everyday objects”. The feedback provided by the students (see Table 35 and Table

36)shows that the students after the MakeITReal workshop are significantly more confident in

applying their knowledge from Math and Science to design everyday objects. An encouraging

finding that shows that the MakeITReal workshop provides indeed links among theory and practical

application

Table 35. Students’ responses before the workshop: I can use knowledge from Math and Science to design everyday

objects [Pre]


18

Table 36. Students’ responses after the workshop: I can use knowledge from Math and Science to design everyday

objects [Post]

Among the statements that they students were called to comment on was the following: “I enjoy

exploring what makes machines work”. The distribution of their responses before (see Table 37)

and after (see Table 38) the workshop slightly differs. The vast majority of students stated that they

enjoy exploring what makes machine work. This observation is very encouraging; building upon

students’ interest relevant resources can be provided to the students as well as opportunities for

tinkering and looking behind the “black box”.

Table 37. Responses in the pre-questionnaire: I enjoy exploring what makes machines work [Pre]

Table 38. Responses in the post-questionnaire: I enjoy exploring what makes machines work [Post]

2.3.4 21st century skills


statements related to their confidence in applying the 21st century skills on a five-point scale that

ranges from ' disagree' to ‘agree’.

One of the statement that they were encouraged to agree or disagree upon was related to their

confidence in setting goals and working towards achieving them. Before MakeITReal

intervention, more than a half of the responders (8 out of 12) agreed with this statement (see Table

39). After the MakeITReal pilot (see Table 40), the number of students that stated their confidence

in setting goals and working towards achieving them was decreased by two (2). Is this an indication

that when they realized the practical challenges of a STEM project they became more sceptical?


19

Similar signs emerged also through the feedback evaluation form that completed after the

MakeITReal workshop (see chapter 3).

Table 39. Responses in the pre-questionnaire: I am confident that I can set goals and work towards achieving them [Pre]

Table 40. Responses in the post-questionnaire: I am confident that I can set goals and work towards achieving them

[Post]

The participant students were also asked about their confidence in finding solutions when things

do to go as planned. The majority of the students appear to be somewhat confident and no significant

changes are noticed before and after the learning intervention (see Table 41 and Table 42). How can

we exploit their confidence and further enhance it? Could well-planned activities, that expose

students to ambiguity, small-scale research and learning by failure, further challenge their thinking

in solving problems even when unexpected or unplanned issues emerge? The “fun of making” or the

hard fun of making is also integrated in “problem solving”, in “re-consideration”, in “decision-

making”. We argue that the students should take risks and learn how to navigate their way to the end

of a STEAM project. In this way, they follow a realistic approach to learning that shares a lot in

common with real life procedures and processes.

Table 41. Responses in the pre-questionnaire: I am confident that I can find solutions when things do not go as planned

[Pre]


20

Table 42. Responses in the post-questionnaire: I am confident that I can find solutions when things do not go as planned

[Post]

Table 43 shows students’ responses in the pre-survey on the statement: “I am confident that I can

present my work in public and communicate my ideas”. After the completion of the pilot, the

students appear to be more confident as far as their presentation skills and communication of their

ideas in public are concerned. The experience gained during the project presentations boosted their

self-confidence and public speaking profile.

Table 43. Responses in the pre-questionnaire: I am confident that I can present my work in public and communicate my

ideas [Pre]

Table 44. Responses in the post-questionnaire: I am confident that I can present my work in public and communicate my

ideas [Post]

2.3.5 Arts


statements related to Arts on a five- point scale that ranges from ' disagree' to ‘agree’. The following

table (see Table 45) shows students’ responses before the pilot on the statement: “Arts has

nothing to do with Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths”. It seems that more effort

should be made in order to better link Arts and STEM subjects. Almost the one third (1/3) of the

students can identify the link, one third struggle at seeing the connection and the rest do not address

a clear answer (see Table 46). The need to make more obvious that STEM and Arts can function well

together is brought into stage. The students were also queried about their interest in exploring science

concepts when combined with Arts. The responses retrieved in the pre-survey are shown in Table


21

47. Almost more than the half of the students (8 out of 12) stated that they are either interested or

somewhat interested in science concepts when combined with Arts. In the post-survey (see Table

48), still more than the half of the students (8 out of 12) stated that they are either interested or

somewhat interested in science concepts when combined with Arts. Negative answers were also

reduced and more students seem uncertain as far as the answer to this question is concerned. This is

an encouraging finding that it is worth being seen in conjunction with the previous question; the

students are generally skeptical whether Arts are related to STEM subjects; however most of them

at the same time express their interest in exploring science concepts when combined with Arts. Is

this a paradox? Does it reflect the lack of interdisciplinary courses in the school but at the same time

demonstrates students’ interest and readiness to combine Arts and Science? Does this imply that we

should build upon students’ interest and pay extra attention on forging the link between Arts and

STEM? Reading backwards this result, an interesting point of view emerges: Can Arts open up a

way to attract students’ interest in STEM?

Table 45. Responses in the pre-questionnaire: Arts has nothing to do with Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths

[Pre]

Table 46. Responses in the post-questionnaire: Arts has nothing to do with Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths

[Post]

Table 47. Responses in the pre-questionnaire: I am interested in exploring science concepts when combined with Arts

[Pre]


22

Table 48. Responses in the pre-questionnaire: I am interested in exploring science concepts when combined with Arts

[Post]

2.4 Students’ perceptions and plans for the future The last section of the pre- and post- questionnaire aims at shading light into the way students

see/imagine their future; an attempt is also made to further explore students’ plans related to STEM

and their school performance. The students are invited to express the extent to which they agree or

disagree to a set of relevant statements on a five- point scale that ranges from ' disagree' to ‘agree’

“I'm planning to work harder in my math and science courses” was the first statement that was

addressed to the students. Table 49 and Table 50 show students’ responses in the pre- and post-

survey. It is perceived that more students expressed a clear agreement on this statement (after the

pilot) and plan to work harder in Maths and Science. After the pilot, no negative answers were

received which is also an encouraging sign (see Table 50) that reflects the potential of the

MakeITReal intervention in inspiring students to try harder.

Table 49. Responses in the pre-questionnaire: I'm planning to work harder in my math and science courses [Pre]

Table 50. Responses in the post-questionnaire: I'm planning to work harder in my math and science courses [Post]

With the aim of alleviating students’ opinions on the value of math and science in making creative

and useful things, the following statement was addressed to the students: “Knowing how to use

math and science together can allow me to make useful and creative things”. In the pre-survey

(see Table 51) students’ responses did not show a dominant trend. After the 1st pilot (see Table 52),

the majority of the responders (7 out of 12) agreed with the addressed statement. The fact that more

than the half of the students clearly agreed after the pilot, proves a progress in line with the


23

MakeITReal purposes. However, there still some negative responses that should be further examined.

A key question to answer is “how we can better support students in making useful and creative things

using math and science through the ten (10) 3D and interdisciplinary MakeITReal projects?

Table 51. Responses in the pre-questionnaire: Knowing how to use math and science together can allow me to make useful

and creative things [Pre]

Table 52. Responses in the post-questionnaire: Knowing how to use math and science together can allow me to make useful

and creative things [Post]

Students’ perceptions on the discipline of engineering were also explored. The students provided an

answer that best describes what they think about the statement: “If I learn engineering, then I can

improve things that people use every day”. After the 1st pilot, the number of the students that

provided a positive feedback about engineering was increased (see Table 53 and Table 54). Is this an

indication that 3D projects improved the students' understanding of engineering? In any case, this

shift shows that they have started negotiating the nature of engineering and establishing the first links

among engineering and its real-life applications. The students were also encouraged to reflect upon

their future careers through the following statement: “I would consider a job that involves using

science and/or maths”. The tables below illustrate the distribution of responses on this statement

before (see Table 55) and after (see Table 56) the MakeITReal workshop. After the MakeITReal

workshop, two more (2) students agreed that they would consider a job that involves science and /or

maths. Noteworthy, totally negative responses are no longer in the stage (see Table 56). This is an

encouraging sign that indicates that the MakeITReal learning experience has the potential to inspire

young students’ interest towards STEM related disciplines and future careers. Undisputedly, a

number of other conditions should be also met (teacher and parent support, stimulation, etc) but a

basis whereupon STEM can be seen as a future career choice has been set and it is worth investing

on it and supporting properly the students to explore meaningfully the world of STEAM.

Table 53. Responses in the pre-questionnaire: If I learn engineering, then I can improve things that people use every day

[Pre]


24

Table 54. Responses in the post-questionnaire: If I learn engineering, then I can improve things that people use every day

[Post]

Table 55. Responses in the pre-questionnaire: I would consider a job that involves using science and/or maths [Pre]

Table 56. Responses in the post-questionnaire: I would consider a job that involves using science and/or maths [Post]


25

Chapter 3: Feedback generated by the students

At the end of the 1st pilot (and after the presentations of the three 3D projects) in the class, the

participant students were encouraged to provide us with their feedback through an online feedback

form [6]. The feedback form consisted of eight questions that focused on students’ experiences from

the workshop. The form provided also space to the students to freely document their opinions and

comments. In total, twelve (12) students filled in the form. Below we summarize how the whole

workshop was perceived by the students.

The whole workshop was described as “creative” by all the participant students (see Table 57).

Apart from “creative”, nine (9) out of twelve (12) students described the workshop as “interesting”,

half of them (6 out of 12) additionally described it as “fascinating”, four (4) out of twelve (12) as

“fun”, three (3) out of twelve (12) as “challenging”. The descriptions addressed by the students are

presented in the table below (see Table 57). Students’ agreement that the MakeITReal workshop was

creative, is very encouraging sign that we are moving towards the correct direction; MakeITReal

aims at showing that STEM subjects can be creative, can allow students to express their creativity.

Table 57 Choosing adjectives that better describe the workshop experience

“What did you like the most?” This was the second question that was addressed to the students. It

was an open question and the students were invited to write down their answers. No prompts were

given. Different answers were given to this question: Some students were referred to the 3D printing

procedure, some others mentioned the 3D projects that were involved into without providing any

additional details, some others emphasized the fact that they actually designed something that was

tangible and ready for demonstration; the students also positively commented on the spirit of

collaboration in the team and the support that they got by their teacher. Among the things that they

liked were the involvement in a new learning experience and the engagement in creative tasks that

involved “technology” and “computers”.

The students (as expected) did not provide us with long answers; however, a careful look at their

statements shows two important issues: 1) that they valued team-work and recognized that activities

like the ones they were involved into helped and challenged the class bonding and 2) that they

enjoyed their involvement in personalized designs and constructions. These are exemplified by

the following quotes:

“I liked the most…the bonding through each one of us” (Student 01)


26

“I mostly liked that we made our very own objects that were real” (Student 11)

“I liked the most that we managed to construct or in other words to 3D print our own designs;

it was our own design!” (Student 12)

The next question that was addressed to the students was related to the things that they did not like

or like the least. The students were referred to the noise in the class, the level of collaboration, the

failures and the challenges that they faced, the instructions that they had to carefully read and to

organizational issues. Four (4) out of twelve (12) students had nothing to report as based on their

statements there was nothing that they did not like. Indicate quote follows:

“I liked everything- it was a new experience for me!” (Student 12)

Four (4) out of twelve (12) students stated that they liked the least the fact that they encountered

challenges and failures, bringing into stage Seumour Papert’s concept of “hard fun” [8]. More

precisely, some students that had described the activity as creative and fun, they also stressed their

discomfort generated by the failures and the challenges that they experienced while working on

their 3D projects.

“I did not like it when I had failures and difficulties” (Student 05)

“The workshop was creative and fun” (Student 05)

Two (2) out of four (4) students mentioned that they could have collaborated better with one another

and placed classroom noise and peer contrast/conflicts among the things that they did not like. One

(1) student mentioned that he/she did not enjoy the fact that he/she had to go through the written

instructions in order to carry out the project. There was also another comment about organizational

issues according to which the MakeITReal workshop should run more frequent. In the student’s

words: “I did not like that the workshop was scheduled to take place only once a week” (Student 10)

The participant students were asked to refer to the new knowledge that they gained. This was an

open and optional question and no prompts were given. A range of answers was therefore expected.

Eleven (11) short replies were addressed, among which were three (3) general statements that were

just confirmations that new knowledge was gained without any provision of details or reference to

the knowledge itself. The replies were grouped together under coming threads running through them

and are summarized in the table below. The most of the students are referring to the 3D modeling

and 3D printing skills and experience, few others to the value of collaboration and one student

that is not a Greek native speaker to the benefits of the interaction with his/her classmates in the

context of the projects.

Thread Frequency Indicative quote

3D printing and 3D modeling 5 “I learnt how to use software

for modeling and I learnt a lot

about 3D printing. I could

have gain this knowledge if I

haven’t attended this

workshop in the school”

(Student 12)

“I learnt how to design and

create 3D objects” (Student

08)


27

Collaboration 2 “I learnt that you need team

work in order to achieve your

goals” (Student 05)

“I practiced my skills in

collaboration and team work”

(Student 03)

General statements 3 “Actually, I learnt many new

things this year. I am sure that

they will be useful in the

future!” (Student 11)

Interaction /Language 1 “Yes, I learned how to speak

Greek more fluently […]”

Table 58. Students’ responses to the question “Did you learn something new?”

All the students were positive in suggesting the MakeITReal workshop to their friends and

classmates; with nine out of twelve addressing a “Yes” answer to the question “Would you propose

this workshop to a friend/classmate” and three out of twelve a “Maybe Yes” answer.

Table 59 Students' responses to the question "Would you propose this workshop to a friend/classmate?"

In addition, it was perceived that all of the students are willing to participate in additional 3D projects.

One (1) student appears to be slightly more skeptical but still positive.

Table 60. Students’ responses

Last, only three (3) out of twelve (12) students documented their ideas for objects that they would

like to 3D model and print (see Table 61- column 1). Student 01 is referred to another idea for

implementation that of the international communication of the experience gained in 3D printing


28

together with his/her team. Student 01 states: “to travel with my team on another country to

demonstrate the Usage of a 3D printer”.

The students were also queried about their suggestions for workshop improvement. Ten (10) answers

were addressed; There was a general agreement (7 out of 10) that there is no need for improvements

and two (2) suggestions were documented.

“None, everything we have in this lab is enough for us to work with” (Student 01)

Τwo (2) students are suggesting the allocation of more time per week to the workshop and one (1)

student requests more filament colours for more colourful prints. The students’ suggestions are

summarized in the table below:

Suggestions

for new 3D objects/projects for workshop improvement

Monuments/ Cartoons More time to be allocated per week

The solar system More filament colours

The planets

Table 61. Students' suggestions for new projects and improvements

In summary, the learning intervention was well received by the students. Students’ responses show

that the MakeITReal workshop set a basis whereupon students’ interest in STEAM disciplines can

be challenged. The students commended positively on the learning experience that they had and they

ask for repetition. They seem to value the collaborative construction of the 3D models, to identify

the benefits of meaningful interaction and to recognize the creative aspects underpinning the 3D

modeling and 3D printing tasks. It is worth noting that there is an indication of Paperts’ conception

of ‘hard fun’. Some students declared that they enjoyed the activity but at the same time they were

mentioning that they came across failures and challenging activities. Their responses are in line with

the feedback provided to the MakeITReal team by the school teachers during C2 training workshop

in Cyprus. Based on teachers’ observations, this was an enjoyable experience for all and there was

high demand for more sessions per week. This is considered as a good sign towards student

engagement in STEAM tasks. The next session (see Chapter 4:) focuses explicitly on teachers’

feedback and on how the whole learning intervention and reactions was perceived by them.


29

Chapter 4: Feedback generated by the participant teachers

In the end of the MakeITReal workshop, the participant teachers completed an online questionnaire

[7] providing us with feedback related to their experiences. Two (2) teachers (Teacher 1 and Teacher

2) have been trained in 3D modeling and printing during the first teacher training workshop (C1) that

organised by the AUTH team in Thessaloniki (Greece). The third participant teacher (Teacher 3)

entered later the MakeITReal workshop; thereby has not received training by the MakeITReal team

but he/she was smoothly introduced to the MakeITReal activities with the support of his/her

colleagues.

The three teachers (see Table 62. ) have rich teaching experience, complement one another and they

all together comprise a team active in the area of Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths.

Subjects taught by the participant teachers Year of teaching

experience

Teacher 1 Computer Science, Robotics, 3d Designing/Printing 14 years

Teacher 2 Maths 30 years

Teacher 3 Technology 10 years

Table 62. Data regarding teaching experience and subjects taught

The teachers confirmed that twelve (12) students (five (5) girls and seven (7) boys), 13-16 years old,

took part in the MakeITReal workshop. Initially, the workshop started with 13 registered students;

nevertheless, the 13th student drop out due to heavy/tight schedule of extracurricular activities. Based

on teachers’ statements, the student at that period was attending foreign language lessons that occupy

a lot of his/her free time.

The table below summarizes the time spent in the three projects, namely the “geometrical solids”,

“the keychain” and “the penguin” project. The duration of the 1st pilot phase (three months) was also

considered adequate (by the three teachers) for carrying out the three projects.

Name of the project Time allocated

Geometrical solids 3 hours

The keychain project 3 hours

The penguin project 3 hours

Table 63. Time allocation per project

The teachers following the guidelines in the pilot protocol (O3) [9] encouraged the students to work

in teams. The general feeling was that the students worked well in teams. One (1) teacher describes

the collaboration as “excellent” and the other two as “very good”. This indicates that there is still

room for improving the collaborative interactions within the teams/group of students. It is worth


30

noting, that the students also recognize the need for improved cooperation as well as its impact on

the project progress (see Chapter 3:).

Table 64. The teachers comment on students’ collaboration during the 1st pilot.

4.1 Working on the three projects Based on the teachers’ feedback, all the teams completed the projects. The first project titled

“Geometrical solids” was considered as an easy project to start with and appropriate for

familiarizing the students with the basics features of the FreeCAD, the selected computer aid design

software. The students were noticed to extend the scenario of the activity and to implement more

advanced tasks exploring the functionalities and the features of the software.

“Students followed the curricula without any problems. The instructions were clear enough and

not much intervention from our side was required. They then noticed to try out more advanced

tasks, like adding colors, combining more shapes, etc. One student designed a teetotum

consisting of simple shapes”. (Teacher 1)

The “keychain project” attracted students’ interest. Having gained some basic experience in

FreeCAD they engaged with excitement in 3D modeling. The fact that they could personalize the

keychain putting their names on it or other messages aroused their interest and attention.

“Some students tried out 2 versions of keychains: with embossed and strikeout letters” (Teacher

01)

The penguin project also attracted students’ interest, who once again noticed to extend further the

project scenario.

“Students found this project very interesting! They set a new goal and designed and printed a

whole penguin family” (Teacher 2)

Another question that was addressed to the teachers, was related to the students’ reactions during

the MakeITReal workshop and their engagement in 3D modeling and 3D printing activities. Answers

to this question were retrieved both through the online questionnaire and in the context of the C2

training workshop were the teachers presented in detail what happened in the class. It appears that

the students enjoyed this learning experience and embraced the MakeITReal learning initiative.

“Student were very interested and happy throughout the educational process, but especially

when they had their designs printed”

“The workshop run once a week, every Tuesday. Every Wednesday morning… the students were

eager to learn about their 3D prints, the plan for the next workshops and whether they can enter

the lab in order to continue working on the 3D projects. It was fascinating to see this”(Teacher

02)

“Students showed vivid enthusiasm and interest from day one.” (Teacher 01)


31

As it has been already mentioned, the students were noticed to extend the project scenario and to try

out more advanced tasks. This happened naturally without any prompt from the teachers. The interest

in extending the projects and the natural engagement in the extension of the project scenario, shows

that it will be useful to include in the end of each project ideas for further developments.

The participant teachers were also asked about the main difficulties/challenges that they encountered

during the implementation of the projects. Two (2) out of three (3) teachers did not report any

challenge/difficulty. One (1) teacher reported the two main challenges that he/she came across; these

are related to technical difficulties with the selected software (that occurred occasionally) and

challenges due to time constrains. When asked about the effect of these challenges on the learning

intervention, he/she claimed that the effect was not serious and did not obstruct the smooth

deployment of the learning intervention.

It is worth noting that when asked to elaborate on the technical difficulties that they encountered,

the teachers are referred to 1) technical difficulties related to the support of a specific font for the

appearance of Greek letters in FreeCAD and 2) few unexpected crashes that caused students’

disappointment. The class teacher was in position to deal with this issue and to support the students

to overcome this issue. In general, the teachers played the role of the facilitators of the learning

process and intervened in the critical stages.

“[…]We face difficulties with the suggested font (did not support Greek letters); an alternative

font was used …and we moved on […]” (Teacher 01)

“While we are working on the keychain project, FreeCAD crashed! The students lost their work

-approximately 40 minutes of work! - and they were disappointed. They were about to give up

the class and our intervention was critical. We helped them start over and we co-designed the

model, preventing their drop-out” (Teacher 01)

When they asked to elaborate on the time constrains, the teachers explained that the time for the

projects was adequate but the printing of the models was timely a more challenging task. Noteworthy,

the 3D printing has been scheduled to take place during morning school hours in order not to leave

the 3D printed unattended.

4.2 Learning intervention impact The participant teachers were also given a set of statements and they were invited to express the

extent of their agreement or disagreement on a five-point scale. The statements are related to the

impact that the workshop is likely to have on students’ collaboration, problem solving and

presentation skills, attitudes towards STEAM, self-esteem and confidence.

No negative responses were retrieved by the teachers which shows that the workshop integrates

indeed features that can inspire most of the students in developing new skills, attributes and attitudes.

The teachers appear more certain about the development of skills and less certain about the adoption

of a new attitude. In other words, they recognize the potential of the workshop and the learning

intervention, they acknowledge the fact that the learning intervention has a positive impact on

students’ learning but they cannot confirm that the adoption of a new attitude has already occur. They

see the signs but (as expected) more time is needed.

Teachers’ responses show that the learning intervention has a positive impact on most of the students’

collaboration and presentation skills (see Table 65 and Table 66).


32

Table 65 Improvement of collaboration skills

Table 66. Improvement of presentation skills

The teachers are moderately positive- regarding the impact of the learning intervention on students’

problem solving skills (see Table 67). Can we claim that this moderate agreement and uncertainty

indicates that the period was not long enough in order to safely express their agreement or

disagreement and that more time will enable them to address a more clear answer? It is worth

revisiting this question during the 2nd pilot period that is going to last longer.

Table 67. Improvement of problem solving skills

A variation of answers was addressed to the statement that regards students’ enhanced confidence

and readiness to take new initiatives after the the MakeITReal workshop (see Table 68). The same

variation of answers is addressed to the statement that concerns the enhanced self-esteem and self-

image (see Table 69). Noteworthy, the answers reflect a sense of agreement with one teacher to be

uncertain. The teacher that selected “Neutral” as an answer was the teacher that entered at the later

stage the MakeITReal workshop. Is this a way to show that he/she has not a comprehensive picture

yet? Does the respondent find it hard to address a clear disagreement or agreement for a specific

reason? This is another interesting point that should be revisited during the 2nd pilot period.

Table 68. Confidence and readiness to take new initiatives


33

Table 69. MakeITReal and the development of an enhanced self-image and self-esteem

When it comes to the stimulation and motivation and the adoption of a more positive attitude for

STEM subjects, it appears that the participant teachers recognize that the MakeITReal learning

intervention facilitates this purpose (see Table 70 and Table 71 ). In addition, the participant teachers

agreed that that MakeITReal practices can help linking STEM to creative, artistic hands-on practices

as well as to real life and research/entrepreneurial practices.

Table 70. MakeITReal workshop and motivation towards STEM

Table 71. MakeITReal workshop and adoption of a more positive attitude for STEM subjects

Two positive answers and one answer that denotes uncertainty were addressed to the statement that

regards the tackling of the underperformance in STEM thought the MakeITReal learning

intervention. Noteworthy, teachers’ responses constitute positive signs towards the fulfilment of this

goal. The neutral answer comes from the teacher that entered at a later stage the MakeITReal

workshop. Is this the teachers’ way to denote that she/he is not yet in position to address a clear

answer? Does this answer show that there are indeed some positive indicators but there is still room

for further developments? In any case, it is worth further exploring how to build on the efforts that

have already been made to better deal with underachievement in STEM and low interest in STEM

subjects.


34

Table 72. Teachers’ responses- MakeITReal as a basis for tackling underachievement in STEM

4.3 Supporting resources and training Another set of questions was related to the educational resources provided to the teachers, the training

sessions and the support offered during the 1st pilot period. The teachers reported that the educational

resources were useful with two (2) out of three (3) describing them as “very useful” (see Table 73).

The support provided by the MakeITReal team received also positive comments (see Table 74); the

same applies to the preparatory activities (i.e. the C1 training activity) that aimed at equipping the

teachers for carrying out 3D modeling and 3D printing tasks in the classroom. The teacher (Teacher

03) that missed the C1 training activity as he/she entered at a later stage the 1st pilot selected for

obvious reasons “Neutral” as an answer (see Table 75).

Table 73. Teachers’ opinions about the educational resources

Table 74. Teachers’ opinion about the support provided during the 1st pilot


35

Table 75. Teachers’ answers

The participant teachers were also invited to express the extent to which they agree or disagree to

this statement: “The MakeITReal learning intervention offered me opportunities for

professional development and skill-building (both from a technical and a pedagogical

perspective)”. Receiving respondents’ agreement in this statement was encouraging, as the

MakeITReal project puts primarily focus on teachers’ professional development and aims at

supporting them in developing the skills needed in order to facilitate the learning process, to help

students’ engagement into product design tasks, to tailor their teaching to students’ needs and finally

to design their own engaging activities in STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and

Maths).

All the teachers appear to be satisfied with the way the MakeITReal workshop was carried out in the

school. They are also confident that they can continue implementing the workshop in the school. The

teacher (Teacher 03) that entered the workshop at a later stage does not address a clear answer but

does not provide a negative one either (see Table 76)

Table 76. Teachers’ confidence

In the last open-ended question, the teachers were also asked about future improvements or

suggestions that would ease the deployment of the learning intervention. No responses were

submitted. Does this mean that there is no need for improvement? Does this denote their general

satisfaction? No secure interpretation can be made at this stage.

In summary, the whole learning intervention was well received by the participant teachers. It seems

that the teachers recognize the educational value of the MakeITReal learning intervention. Based on

teachers’ observations, this was an enjoyable experience for all and there was high demand for more

sessions per week. This is considered as a good sign towards student engagement in STEAM tasks.

The teachers stress the fact that the MakeITReal workshop/pilot integrates indeed features that can

inspire most of the students in enhancing their skills (i.e. presentation skills, collaboration skills) and

exploring the creative aspects of STEM. The participant teachers appear more certain about the

stimulation towards the development of new skills and less certain about the actual adoption of a new

attitude. In other words, they recognize the educational potential of the workshop, they acknowledge

the fact that the learning intervention has a positive impact on students’ learning and views as far as

STEAM is concerned but they cannot confirm that the adoption of a new attitude has already

happened.


36

Chapter 5: Conclusion

This report presents the results of a small-scale study that was conducted with twelve secondary

school students 14-16 years old and three (3) secondary school teachers that took part in the 1st

MakeITReal workshop. The workshop was organized in the context of the 1st pilot phase and lasted

approximately 3 months. During this 3-month period the students were introduced in 3D modelling

and 3D printing tasks through three projects; the project aimed at smoothly introducing students in

the selected CAD software, providing opportunities to see the challenges underpinning design and

the process of 3D printing.

The number of the respondents (12) was low to enable generalization. The resulted trends appear

from the calculated by LimeSurvey units and percentages. Given the small sample secure conclusions

cannot be easily drawn. However, the feedback generated showed that the MakeITReal intervention

influenced positively students’ interest in STEAM. The students appear to be inspired by their recent

MakeITReal experience and they tend to re-consider their opinions as far as STEM is concerned, to

negotiate their longer engagement in STEAM activities and even to consider STEM as a future career

choice. Although these are encouraging signs, we are aware of the fact that these signs may denote

the beginning of the adoption of a new attitude but cannot guarantee it.

There is also a good indication that the link between STEM and real life was enhanced; however,

students’ responses show that there is still room for further initiatives (at school level) with a focus

on linking school practices in STEM with real and daily life as well as with creative activities. In

addition, the students appear to be more confident after their engagement in the MakeITReal

activities. Again, there is still room for improvement and the question that is raised in how we can

exploit their already documented confidence and further enhance it.

Students’ responses in the online feedback form also show that the MakeITReal workshop sets a

basis whereupon students’ interest in STEAM disciplines can be challenged. The students

commended positively on the learning experience that they had and they ask for repetition. They

seem to negotiate the value of the collaborative construction of the 3D models, to identify the benefits

of the meaningful interaction in the context of the school projects and to recognize the creative

aspects underpinning the 3D modeling and 3D printing tasks. The process of designing an object on

the computer, adding their personal touch and “printing” it out attracted remarkably their interest.

Some students declared that they enjoyed the projects but at the same time they stated that the liked

the least when they came across failures and challenging activities. “Is this a contradiction? No, we

think that it is an excellent case of the ‘hard fun’ Papert proposed as the essence of good education.

The participant teachers confirmed students’ interest and enthusiasm in the MakeITReal projects. In

the context of the MakeITReal workshop, the teachers acted as motivators and as facilitators of the

learning process. The teachers also confirmed the high demand for more frequent sessions (more

than once a week); noteworthy, this demand reflects students’ enthusiasm and high interest and not

a weak point in the workshop design as the three projects were carried out as planned without rush

or any deviations from the original plan.

The main challenges, that were encountered, were related to occasional technical problems with the

software and time constrains. However, none of the aforementioned challenges had a negative effect

on the deployment of the learning intervention. Based on teachers’ feedback the MakeITReal

learning intervention offers opportunities to steer students toward more relevant, engaging learning

experiences in STEAM. The teachers seem to recognize the potential of the learning intervention, to

acknowledge the fact that the learning intervention has a positive impact on students’ learning but

they cannot confirm that the adoption of a new attitude has already occur. The adoption of a new

attitude needs more time and requires a context of continuous motivation and stimulation towards

STEAM.


37

There was also an agreement that the MakeITReal learning intervention offered participant teachers

opportunities for professional development and skill-building (both from a technical and a

pedagogical perspective); towards this end, the support provided by the MakeITReal team was highly

acknowledged.

The feedback provided by the participant teachers and students raises also implications and indicates

room for further initiatives in STEAM in the context of the second pilot period. No matter the

enhanced links between STEM and creativity, it appears that there is still room for further

improvement. A core question that is raised is how we can better forge the link between Arts and

STEM concepts through the next set of projects. Similarly, the MakeITReal workshop was

considered as an activity that offers examples of how Math & Science are related to real world.

However, there is still room for additional examples that can help students realize that the things that

they learn in Maths and Science matter in real and daily life. An additional challenge for the 2nd pilot

period is to offer students opportunities to take more risks and learn how to navigate their way to the

end of gradually more advanced STEAM projects. We argue that the “fun of making” or the “hard

fun of making” involves “research”, “planning”, “problem solving”, “re-consideration”, “decision-

making”, “learning by failure”, “risk-taking”, “presentation and ideas communication”; all these are

important stages and skills that can give individuals the power to invent and prepare them for real-

world challenges. It is worth building upon the good basis set during the 1st pilot and continuing

creating rich educational experiences that challenge students’ ideas and stretch them as far as they

can go.

The aforementioned key conclusions summarise the main findings as well as commonly expressed

opinions. These are derived from the preceding chapters of this report and they are going to inform

the 2nd MakeITReal pilot phase.


38

References

[1] Project 1: The geometrical solids: http://makeitreal.info/?page_id=286

[2] Project 2: The keychain project: http://makeitreal.info/?page_id=286

[3] Project 3: The penguin project: http://makeitreal.info/?page_id=286

[4] “Eligibility profile card”, available online at:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4tbetlrrxq68vmy/Eligibility_profile_card.docx?dl=0

[5] “Pre and post- survey”, available online at:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mbzlvsrw3qa9xn8/O3-Pre-test-4students.docx?dl=0 and

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wccwu541916665f/O3-Post-test-4students.docx?dl=0

[6] “Feedback online form for students”, available online at:


[7] “Feedback online form for teachers”, available online at:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vb84mw4srslj42k/O3-FeedbackForm-4students.docx?dl=0

[8] Papert S, “Hard fun”, article available online at:

http://www.papert.org/articles/HardFun.html

[9] MakeITReal Intellectual Outputs: http://makeitreal.info/?page_id=278

http://makeitreal.info/?page_id=286



https://www.dropbox.com/s/4tbetlrrxq68vmy/Eligibility_profile_card.docx?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mbzlvsrw3qa9xn8/O3-Pre-test-4students.docx?dl=0



https://www.dropbox.com/s/vb84mw4srslj42k/O3-FeedbackForm-4students.docx?dl=0

http://www.papert.org/articles/HardFun.html



39

Appendix

Pictures taken during the 1st pilot


40

Video prepared during the 1st pilot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTZAcIcLn9I&feature=youtu.be



MAKEITREAL PROJECTmakeitreal.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Int...MAKEITREAL Project Erasmus+ KA2 2016-1-PL01-KA201-026492 . 6 . Chapter 2: Pre and post test . The purpose of pre-

Documents