Intrinsic motivation as a determinant of perceived usefulness of library makerspace: the influence of learning dimensions
Main Article Content
An increasing number of academic libraries are providing techno-savvy spaces, generally regarded as makerspace, that plays a significant role to serve the learning needs of university students. Yet, the underutilization of these makerspaces among learners in Nigerian universities is a growing concern. This study suggests a model using the Self-Determination Theory and the Tinkering Learning Dimensions Framework to investigate the influence of intrinsic motivation and learning dimensions (learning engagement and social scaffolding) on the perceived usefulness of library makerspace among Nigerian university students. Using a quantitative approach, four hypotheses were developed to examine the relationship between the constructs. Data from 323 valid respondents were analyzed using structural equation modeling. The findings reveal that intrinsic motivational factors have no direct statistically significant influence on the perceived usefulness of library makerspace. However, the relationship is mediated by an indirect influence of learning engagement. Social scaffolding and learning engagement were both found to have a direct significant influence on the perceived usefulness of makerspace. This study contributes to understanding the factors that influence the perceived usefulness of makerspace which would then lead to the increased use of this collaborative workspace. Contribution to the literature of the utilization of makerspace is discussed based on the presented framework.
It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to the journal have not been published, accepted for publication, nor simultaneously submitted for publication elsewhere. By submitting a manuscript, the author(s) agree that copyright for the article is transferred to the publisher, if and when the manuscript is accepted for publication.
Akther, T., and Nur, T. 2022. A model of factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: A synthesis of the theory of reasoned action, conspiracy theory belief, awareness, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use. PLOS One, Vol. 17, no. 1: e0261869. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261869.
An, M. A., and Han, S. L. 2020. Effects of experiential motivation and customer engagement on customer value creation: Analysis of psychological process in the experience-based retail environment. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 120: 389-397. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.02.044.
Anderson, C. 2012. Makers: The New Industrial Revolution New York. NY: Crown Business.
Baichtal, J. 2011. Hack this: 24 incredible hackerspace projects from the DIY movement. Seattle, WA: Que Pub.
Bartlett, M.S. 1954. A note on the multiplying factors for various χ 2 approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, Vol. 16, no. 2: 296-298.
Basuki, R., Tarigan, Z., Siagian, H., Limanta, L., Setiawan, D., and Mochtar, J. 2022. The effects of perceived ease of use, usefulness, enjoyment and intention to use online platforms on behavioral intention in online movie watching during the pandemic era. International Journal of Data and Network Science, Vol. 6, no. 1: 253-262.
Becker, S.A., Freeman, A., Giesinger Hall, C., Cummins, M., and Yuhnke, B. 2016. NMC/CoSN Horizon report: 2016 K-12 Edition. The New Media Consortium, Austin, Texas. Available at: http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2016-nmc-cosn-horizon-report-k12-EN.pdf.
Benjes-Small, C., Bellamy, L. M., Resor-Whicker, J., and Vassady, L. 2017. Makerspace or waste of space: Charting a course for successful academic library makerspaces. In: ACRL 2017: At the Helm:Leading Transformation, Baltmore, MD: American Library Association, pp. 428-436.
Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., and Wilkinson, K. 2015. Learning through STEM‐rich tinkering: Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Science Education, Vol. 99, no. 1: 98-120.
Bevan, B., Petrich, M., and Wilkinson, K. 2014. Tinkering is serious play. Educational Leadership, Vol. 72, no. 4: 28-33.
Blackley, S., Sheffield, R., Maynard, N., Koul, R., and Walker, R. 2017. Makerspace and reflective practice: Advancing pre-service teachers in STEM education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 42, no. 3: 22-37.
Blikstein, P. 2013. Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of invention. FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors, Vol. 4: 1-21.
Byrne, B.M. 2016. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming (multivariate applications series). New York: Routledge.
Cantelon, A. 2018. Making in the classroom: A self-study examining the implementation of a makerspace. (Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Simon Fraser University). Available at: https://summit.sfu.ca/item/18517.
Casakin, H., and Kreitler, S. 2010. Motivation for creativity in architectural design and engineering design students: Implications for design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Vol. 20, no. 4: 477-493.
Cho, M. H., and Cho, Y. 2016. Online instructors’ use of scaffolding strategies to promote interactions: A scale development study. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning: IRRODL, Vol. 17, no.6: 108-120.
Colegrove, P.T. 2017. Makerspaces in libraries: technology as catalyst for better learning, better teaching. Ingeniería Solidaria, Vol. 13, no. 21: 19-26.
Corsini, L., and Moultrie, J. 2020. Humanitarian makerspaces in crisis-affected communities. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 34, no. 3: 374-386.
Davis, F.D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13. No. 3: 319-340.
Davis., F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., and Warshaw, P.R. 1992. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 22, no. 14: 1111-1132.
Dougherty, D. 2012. The maker movement. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, Vol. 7, no. 3: 11-14.
El-Sayad, G., Md Saad, N.H. and Thurasamy, R. 2021. How higher education students in Egypt perceived online learning engagement and satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Computers in Education, Vol. 8, no. 4: 527-550.
Engel, R. J. and Schutt, R.K. 2012. The practice of research in social work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fagan, M.H., Neill, S., and Wooldridge, B.R. 2008. Exploring the intention to use computers: An empirical investigation of the role of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and perceived ease of use. Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 48, no. 3: 31-37.
Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., and Paris, A.H. 2004. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 74, no. 1: 59-109. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Fleming, L. 2015. Worlds of making: Best practices for establishing a makerspace for your school, Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, no. 1: 39–50.
Freeman, G.T., Bennett, S., Demas, S., Frischer, B., Peterson, C.A., and Oliver, K.B. 2005. Library as place: rethinking roles, rethinking space. Washington DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. Available at: https://www.clir.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/pub129.pdf.
Gilal, F.G., Chandani, K., Gilal, R.G., Gilal, N.G., Gilal, W.G., and Channa, N.A. 2020. Towards a new model for green consumer behaviour: A self‐determination theory perspective. Sustainable Development, Vol. 28, no. 4: 711-722.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., and Anderson, R. 2010. Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.), Upper saddle, NJ: Pearson.
Hair., J.F., Gabriel, M., and Patel, V. 2014. AMOS covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM): Guidelines on its application as a marketing research tool. Brazilian Journal of Marketing, Vol. 13, no. 2: 44-55.
Harron, J.R., and Hughes, J.E. 2018. Spacemakers: A leadership perspective on curriculum and the purpose of K–12 educational makerspaces. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Vol. 50, no. 3: 253-270.
Halverson, E.R., and Sheridan, K. 2014. The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 84, no. 4: 495-504.
Han, S.-Y., Yoo, J., Zo, H., and Ciganek, A. P. 2017. Understanding makerspace continuance: A self-determination perspective. Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 34, no. 4: 184-195.
Hilton, E., Tomko, M., Murphy, A., Nagal, R., and Linsey, J. 2018. Impacts on design self-efficacy for students choosing to participate in a university makerspace. In E. Dekoninck et al. (Eds). Proceedings of The Fifth International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC 2018), Bath, UK (pp. 369-378).
Hong, J.-C., Zhang, H.-L., Ye, J.-H., and Ye, J.-N. 2021. The effects of academic self-efficacy on vocational students behavioral engagement at school and at firm internships: A model of engagement-value of achievement motivation. Education Sciences, Vol. 11, no. 8: 387. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080387
Hu, L.T., and Bentler, P.M. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: a Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6, no. 1: 1-55.
Hu, X., Griffin, M., Yeo, G., Kanse, L., Hodkiewicz, M., and Parkes, K. 2018. A new look at compliance with work procedures: An engagement perspective. Safety Science, Vol. 105: 46-54.
Hussain, A., and Nisha, F. 2017. Awareness and use of library makerspaces among library professionals in India: A Study. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, Vol. 37, no. 2 : 84-90. Available at: https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.37.2.10989.
Hynes, M.M., and Hynes, W.J. 2018. If you build it, will they come? Student preferences for makerspace environments in higher education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Vol. 28, no. 3: 867-883.
Keshinro, D., and Oyewole, O. 2021. Predictors of use of school library makerspace by secondary school students in Ibadan, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 5608, Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5608
Kline, R.B. 2005. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.), New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Krejcie, R.V., and Morgan, D.W. 1970. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 30, no. 3: 607-610.
Li, X. 2021. Young people's information practices in library makerspaces. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 72, no. 6: 744-758. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24442.
Maheshwari, G. 2021. Factors affecting students’ intentions to undertake online learning: an empirical study in Vietnam. Education and Information Technologies, Vol. 26, no. 6: 6629-6649.
Martin, L. 2015. The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, Vol. 5, no. 4: 4.
Moorefield-Lang, H., and Coker, M. 2019. Makerspaces in the high school setting. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 47-59. Available at: http://www.qqml.net/index.php/qqml/article/view/430
Mulhem, A. A., and Almaiah, M. A. 2021. A conceptual model to investigate the role of mobile game applications in education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Electronics, Vol. 10, no. 17: 1-14.
O’Brien, H. L., Cairns, P., and Hall, M. 2018. A practical approach to measuring user engagement with the refined user engagement scale (UES) and new UES short form. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 112: 28-39.
Okpala, H. N. 2016. Making a makerspace case for academic libraries in Nigeria. New Library World, -vol. 117, no. 9/10: 568-586. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-05-2016-0038.
Okuonghae, O. 2019. Creating makerspaces in Nigerian libraries: issues and challenges. Indian Journal of Information Sources and Services, Vol. 9, no. 2: 49-52.
Osawaru, K.E., Dime, A.I., and Okonjo, E. H. 2020. The right TIME for makerspaces in Nigerian academic libraries: perceived benefits and challenges. International Journal on Integrated Education, Vol. 3, no. 10: 103-115.
Otieno, C. 2017. Makerspaces: A qualitative look into makerspaces as innovative learning environment. (Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Nothern Colorado, Greeley). Available at: https://digscholarship.unco.edu/dissertations/441.
Pallant, J. 2007. SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis with SPSS, McGrath Hill, New York.
Reeve, J., and Halusic, M. 2009. How K-12 teachers can put self-determination theory principles into practice. Theory and Research in Education, Vol. 7, no. 2: 145-154.
Rhima, T.T. 2021. Awareness of the concept of makerspace: the scenario of university libraries in Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 4952. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4952/.
Ryan, R.M., and Deci, E.L. 2017. Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Ryan, R.M., and Deci, E.L. 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 25, no. 1: 54-67.
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. 2002. Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). University of Rochester Press.
Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., and Owens, T. 2014. Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 84, no. 4: 505-531.
Standage, M., Duda, J. L., and Ntoumanis, N. 2005. A test of self‐determination theory in school physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 75, no. 3: 411-433.
Sun, H. 2010. Sellers’ trust and continued use of online marketplaces. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 11, no. 4: 182-211.
Sun, Y. and Gao, F. 2020. An investigation of the influence of intrinsic motivation on students’ intention to use mobile devices in language learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 68, no. 3: 1181-1198.
Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., and Ullman, J.B. 2007. Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5): Pearson Boston, MA.
Tomko, M., Nagel, R., Alemán, M., Newstetter, W., and Linsey, J. 2018. Learning in academic makerspaces: preliminary case studies of how academic makerspaces afford learning for female students. Paper presented at the 2018 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT. June 24-27, American Society of Engineering Education.
Unal, E., and Uzun, A.M. 2021. Understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use Edmodo through the lens of an extended technology acceptance model. British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 52, no. 2: 619-637.
Van-Holm., E.J. 2015. Makerspaces and contributions to entrepreneurship. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 195: 24-31.
Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C.P., and Soenens, B. 2010. The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, Vol. 16: 105-165.
Vansteenkiste, M., and Sheldon, K. M. 2006. There's nothing more practical than a good theory: Integrating motivational interviewing and self‐determination theory. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 45, no. 1: 63-82.
Venkatesh, V., and Bala, H. 2008. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, Vol. 39, no. 2: 273-315. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.
Vinodrai, T., Nader, B., and Zavarella, C. 2021. Manufacturing space for inclusive innovation? A study of makerspaces in southern Ontario. Local Economy, Vol. 36, no. 3: 205-223.
Vongkulluksn, V.W., Matewos, A.M., Sinatra, G.M., and Marsh, J.A. (2018). Motivational factors in makerspaces: a mixed methods study of elementary school students’ situational interest, self-efficacy, and achievement emotions, International Journal of STEM Education, Vol. 5, no. 1: 1-19.
Wang, F., Wang, W., Wilson, S., and Ahmed, N. 2016. The state of library makerspaces. International Journal of Librarianship, Vol. 1, no. 1: 2-16. Available at: https://doi.org/10.23974/ijol.2016.vol1.1.12
Welch, A.N., and Wyatt-Baxter, K. 2018. Beyond metrics: Connecting academic library makerspace assessment practices with organizational values. Library Hi Tech, Vol. 36, no. 2: 306-318. Available at: doi:10.1108/LHT-08-2017-0181.
Woolls, T.K. 2018. Making makerspaces work: A comparative case study of makerspaces and their support. (Unpublished doctoral thesis, Capella University). Available at: https://www.proquest.com/openview/eeee0d16ebaac05be60948d65178bbb6/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750.
Xi, N., and Hamari, J. 2019. Does gamification satisfy needs? A study on the relationship between gamification features and intrinsic need satisfaction. International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 46: 210-221. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.12.002