Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Using Makey-Makey for teaching electricity to primary school students. A pilot study

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Primary school students find it difficult to grasp concepts related to electricity. On the other hand, tangible user interfaces, such as Makey-Makey, offer an interesting alternative for teaching this subject. In order to examine whether the above holds true, a pilot project was carried out, having as a target group 75 students aged 10–11, divided into three groups. Everyday materials for making circuit boards were used for the teaching of the first group, simulations were used in the second, and in the third Makey-Makeys were utilized. Bybee’s 5Es was the teaching framework applied to all groups. The project lasted for eight two-hour sessions for each group. Data were collected using evaluations sheets and a short questionnaire. The results’ analysis demonstrated that the learning outcomes of students that used Makey-Makey were better compared with the other two groups. This result suggests that students in this group established a solid base of functional as well as procedural knowledge regarding electricity. Then again, no significant differences were noted between the group that used simulations and the group that used Makey-Makey in terms of motivation and enjoyment. The findings point to the need of providing educators with software tools that will assist them in using Makey-Makey more efficiently. Furthermore, when intending to use it for teaching a subject, they should reflect on whether this device has clear advantages over other tools and what meaningful activities can be conducted. An appropriate teaching framework is also advised.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Abrahams, D. (2018). The efficacy of service-learning in students’ engagements with music technology. Min-Ad: Israel Studies in Musicology Online, 15, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aktan, D. C. (2012). Investigation of students’ intermediate conceptual understanding levels: The case of direct current electricity concepts. European Journal of Physics, 34(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/34/1/33.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Antink-Meyer, A., & Meyer, D. Z. (2016). Science teachers’ misconceptions in science and engineering distinctions: Reflections on modern research examples. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(6), 625–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9478-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azaiza, I., Bar, V., & Galili, I. (2006). Learning electricity in elementary school. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(1), 45–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-004-6826-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrios, J. E. M., Becerra, D. A. I., Páucar, F. H. R., & Mendoza, F. M. T. (2018). Matelogic: Interactive mathematical learning based on challenges. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on information and education technology (pp. 61–65). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3178158.3178208.

  • Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. B., & Forsythe, A. B. (1974). Robust test for the equality of variance. Journal of American Statistical Association, 69, 364–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1974.10482955.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2016). Future scenarios for mobile science learning. Research in Science Education, 46(2), 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9514-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness (Vol. 5, pp. 88–98). Colorado Springs, Co: BSCS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calleja, M., Luque, M. L., Rodríguez, J. M., & Liranzo, A. (2015). Incremento de la competencia lingüística en dos sujetos con Parálisis cerebral mediante el dispositivo Makey-Makey. Un estudio de Caso [increasing language proficiency in two subjects with cerebral palsy using the Makey-Makey device. A case study]. Revista de Investigación en Logopedia, 5(2), 112–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, S. (2014). Teaching the" big ideas" of Electricity at Primary Level. Primary Science, 135, 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. W. J., & Lo, K. M. J. (2019). From teacher-designer to student-researcher: A study of attitude change regarding creativity in STEAM education by using Makey-Makey as a platform for human-centred design instrument. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0010-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. Y., Yip, J., Rosner, D., & Hiniker, A. (2019). Lights, music, stamps! Evaluating mealtime tangibles for preschoolers. Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction, 127-134. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3294109.3295645.

  • Cheung, D., Ma, H. J., & Yang, J. (2009). Teachers’ misconceptions about the effects of addition of more reactants or products on chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(6), 1111–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9151-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, K., & Chang, H. (2004). The effects of using the electric circuit model in science education to facilitate learning electricity-related concepts. Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 44(6), 1341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choosri, N., Pookao, C., Swangtrakul, N., & Atkin, A. (2017). Tangible interface game for stimulating child language cognitive skill. IADIS International Journal on WWW/Internet, 15, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collective, B. S. M., & Shaw, D. (2012). Makey-Makey: Improvising tangible and nature-based user interfaces. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on tangible, embedded and embodied interaction (pp. 367–370). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2148131.2148219.

  • Cousin, G. (2006). Threshold concepts, troublesome knowledge and emotional capital. Overcoming barriers to student understanding: An exploration into learning about others. In J. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.), Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 134–147). Routledge.

  • Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.

  • Davis, R., Kafai, Y., Vasudevan, V., & Lee, E. (2013). The education arcade: Crafting, remixing, and playing with controllers for scratch games. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 439–442). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2485760.2485846.

  • Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eguchi, A. (2016). Computational thinking with educational robotics. Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & teacher education international conference, 79–84. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

  • Engelhardt, P. V., & Beichner, R. J. (2004). Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits. American Journal of Physics, 72(1), 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1614813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eylon, B. S., & Ganiel, U. (1990). Macro-micro relationships: The missing link between electrostatics and electrodynamics in students’ reasoning. International Journal of Science Education, 12(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069900120107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falloon, G. (2019). Using simulations to teach young students science concepts: An experiential learning theoretical analysis. Computers & Education, 135, 138–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-López, Á., Rodríguez-Fórtiz, M. J., Rodríguez-Almendros, M. L., & Martínez-Segura, M. J. (2013). Mobile learning technology based on iOS devices to support students with special education needs. Computers & Education, 61, 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, A. (2011). Active learning exercises for teaching second level electricity addressing basic misconceptions. Resource & Research Guides, 2, 10), 1–10), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fokides, E., Atsikpasi, P., Kaimara, P., & Deliyannis, I. (2019). Let players evaluate serious games. Design and validation of the Serious Games Evaluation Scale. International Computer Games Association Journal, 31(3), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3233/ICG-190111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsthuber, B., Motiejunaite, A., & de Almeida-Coutinho, A. S. (2011). Science education in Europe: National policies, practices and research. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, European Commission.

  • Games, P. A., & Howell, J. F. (1976). Pairwise multiple comparison procedures with unequal N's and/or variances: A Monte Carlo study. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1(2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986001002113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guisasola, J. (2014). Teaching and learning electricity: The relations between macroscopic level observations and microscopic level theories. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 129–156). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_5.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W., & Qualter, A. (2014). The teaching of science in primary schools (6th ed.). Routledge.

  • Heller, P. M., & Finley, F. N. (1992). Variable uses of alternative conceptions: A case study in current electricity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(3), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershman, A., Nazare, J., Qi, J., Saveski, M., Roy, D., & Resnick, M. (2018). Light it up: Using paper circuitry to enhance low-fidelity paper prototypes for children. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on interaction design and children (pp. 365–372). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3202185.3202758.

  • Ishii, H. (2008). Tangible bits: Beyond pixels. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, xv-xxv. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1347390.1347392.

  • Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Veermans, K. (2011). A comparison of students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R., Shum, V., Rogers, Y., & Marquardt, N. (2016). Make or shake: An empirical study of the value of making in learning about computing technology. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 440–451). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2930674.2930691.

  • Kaltakci-Gurel, D., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2016). Identifying pre-service physics teachers’ misconceptions and conceptual difficulties about geometrical optics. European Journal of Physics, 37(4), 045705. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/37/4/045705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kibuka-Sebitosi, E. (2007). Understanding genetics and inheritance in rural schools. Journal of Biological Education, 41(2), 56–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2007.9656063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilty, T. J., & Burrows, A. C. (2019). Secondary science preservice teachers’ perceptions of engineering: A learner analysis. Education Sciences, 9(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9010029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollöffel, B., & de Jong, T. (2013). Conceptual understanding of electrical circuits in secondary vocational engineering education: Combining traditional instruction with inquiry learning in a virtual lab. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(3), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. J. (2007). Exploring pupils’ understanding concerning batteries-theories and practices. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 497–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601073350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E., Kafai, Y. B., Vasudevan, V., & Davis, R. L. (2014). Playing in the arcade: Designing tangible interfaces with Makey-Makey for scratch games. In A. Nijholt (Ed.), Playful user interfaces (pp. 277–292). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-96-2_13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy Nahum, T., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Taber, K. S. (2010). Teaching and learning the concept of chemical bonding. Studies in Science Education, 46(2), 179–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2010.504548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. Y., & Chang, Y. M. (2014). Increase in physical activities in kindergarten children with cerebral palsy by employing MaKey–MaKey-based task systems. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(9), 1963–1969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.04.028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M., Wang, S., & Johnson, E. (2016). Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Computers & Education, 95, 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lix, L. M., Keselman, J. C., & Keselman, H. J. (1996). Consequences of assumption violations revisited: A quantitative review of alternatives to the one-way analysis of variance F test. Review of Educational Research, 66, 579–619. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano Mahecha, P. A., Caicedo, G., Armando, B., Ochoa, G., & Daniel, W. (2016). Scratch y Makey Makey: Herramientas Para fomentar habilidades del pensamiento de orden superior [scratch and Makey Makey: Tools to foster higher order thinking skills]. Revista Electrónica Redes de Ingeniería, 7, 1. https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.redes.2016.1.a4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maharaj-Sharma, R. (2011). What are students' ideas about the concept of an electric current: A primary school perspective. Caribbean Curriculum, 18, 69–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manches, A., O’Malley, C., & Benford, S. (2010). The role of physical representations in solving number problems: A comparison of young children’s use of physical and virtual materials. Computers & Education, 54(3), 622–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, S., Boden, M., & Visnovska, J. (2018). Engaging pre-service non-specialist teachers in teaching mathematics using embodied technology tools. Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.

  • McDermott, L. C. (1991). Millikan lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned-closing the gap. American Journal of Physics, 59(4), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.16539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, L. C., & Shaffer, P. S. (1992). Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I: Investigation of student understanding. American Journal of Physics, 60(11), 994–1003. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning-ten years on (pp. 412–424). Oxford: OCSLD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (2005). Human-centered design considered harmful. Interactions, 12(4), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/1070960.1070976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2017). Core skills for public sector innovation. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/media/oecdorg/satellitesites/opsi/contents/files/OECD_OPSI-core_skills_for_public_sector_innovation-201704.pdf https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264280724-6-en

  • Osborne, R. (1983). Towards modifying children's ideas about electric current. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1(1), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514830010108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palaigeorgiou, G., Tsapkini, D., Bratitsis, T., & Xefteris, S. (2017). Embodied learning about time with tangible clocks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication, Technologies and Learning (pp. 477–486). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75175-7_47.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.

  • Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peşman, H., & Eryılmaz, A. (2010). Development of a three-tier test to assess misconceptions about simple electric circuits. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(3), 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pine, K., Messer, D., & St. John, K. (2001). Children's misconceptions in primary science: A survey of teachers' views. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140120046240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Hayward, E. O. (2009). Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 31–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-009-9011-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramnarain, U., & Moosa, S. (2017). The use of simulations in correcting electricity misconceptions of grade 10 south African physical sciences learners. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education (formerly CAL-laborate International), 25(5).

  • Rogers, Y., Paay, J., Brereton, M., Vaisutis, K. L., Marsden, G., & Vetere, F. (2014). Never too old: Engaging retired people inventing the future with Makey-Makey. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3913–3922. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557184.

  • Scaradozzi, D., Screpanti, L., Cesaretti, L., Storti, M., & Mazzieri, E. (2019). Implementation and assessment methodologies of teachers’ training courses for STEM activities. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(2), 247–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9356-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneps, M. H., & Sadler, P. M. (1997). Minds of our own. Video. Retrieved from http://www.learner.org/resources/series26.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shipstone, D. M. (1984). A study of children's understanding of electricity in simple DC circuits. European Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528840060208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W., & Smith, B. C. (2016). Bringing the maker movement to school. Science and Children, 54(1), 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomonidou, C., & Kakana, D. M. (2000). Preschool children's conceptions about the electric current and the functioning of electric appliances. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 8(1), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/13502930085208511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephanidis, C. (2001). User interfaces for all: New perspectives into human-computer interaction. User Interfaces for All-Concepts, Methods, and Tools, 1, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429285059-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarciso Borges, A., & Gilbert, J. K. (1999). Mental models of electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNICEF. (2016). Youth empowerment. UNICEF innovation. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/innovation/innovation_91018.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasudevan, V., Kafai, Y. B., Lee, E., & Davis, R. L. (2013). Joystick designs: Middle school youth crafting controllers with Makey-Makey for scratch games. In Proceedings of the Games, learning, and society conference (pp. 345–351). ETC Press.

  • Wang, T. L., & Tseng, Y. K. (2018). The comparative effectiveness of physical, virtual, and virtual-physical manipulatives on third-grade students’ science achievement and conceptual understanding of evaporation and condensation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9774-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). PhET: Simulations that enhance learning. Science, 322, 682–683. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1161948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xefteris, S., & Palaigeorgiou, G. (2019). Mixing educational robotics, tangibles and mixed reality environments for the interdisciplinary learning of geography and history. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 9(2), 82–98. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v9i2.9950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. C., & De Jong, T. (2014). The effects on students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits of introducing virtual manipulatives within a physical manipulatives-oriented curriculum. Cognition and Instruction, 32(2), 101–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2014.887083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajkov, O., Gegovska-Zajkova, S., & Mitrevski, B. (2017). Textbook-caused misconceptions, inconsistencies, and experimental safety risks of a grade 8 physics textbook. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(5), 837–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9715-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Primary School Education, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece

    Emmanuel Fokides & Alexandra Papoutsi

Authors
  1. Emmanuel Fokides
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexandra Papoutsi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmanuel Fokides.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Appendix

Appendix

Table 5 The questionnaire’s items
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fokides, E., Papoutsi, A. Using Makey-Makey for teaching electricity to primary school students. A pilot study. Educ Inf Technol 25, 1193–1215 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10013-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10013-5

Keywords