CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 15Teaching and Learning ProgrammingProblem and Project Based LearningGender and Technology in Education

Fostering students’ motivation and self-efficacy in science, technology, engineering, and design through design thinking and making in project-based learning: a gender-perspective study in primary education

Open access
Santos, Patricia, El Aadmi, Khadija, Calvera-Isabal, Miriam, Rodríguez, Amaia·2025·International Journal of Technology and Design Education
DOI 10.1007/s10798-025-10001-6
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study examines the impact of integrating Design Thinking and Maker Education into project-based learning (PBL) activities on primary school students’ self-efficacy and motivation in Science, Technology, and Design. Drawing on Bandura’s social cognitive theory, the study addresses the gap in empirical research at the primary education level, particularly concerning gender disparities in STEM engagement. Over a three-year period, 12 public schools in Barcelona ( n = 318 students in grades 4–6) participated in a five-session workshop where students created technological prototypes using tools like Scratch and Makey Makey. Pre- and post-intervention surveys measured changes in students’ self-efficacy, motivation, and prior behavior. Results revealed significant improvements in students’ self-efficacy, particularly among girls, with moderate to large effect sizes in key items related to confidence and active information-seeking. While most responses indicated high satisfaction, some challenges were noted in early phases of the design process. These findings suggest that early exposure to PBL approaches incorporating Design Thinking and Making can help foster positive attitudes toward STEM and reduce early gender disparities. The study highlights the value of inclusive, hands-on pedagogies and calls for extended interventions and further longitudinal research to assess long-term impact.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study examined whether integrating Design Thinking and Maker Education into project-based learning affected primary students’ self-efficacy and motivation in Science, Technology, and Design, with a gender focus. Across three editions in 12 Barcelona public schools, the screened sample of 318 students in grades 4–6 showed significant self-efficacy gains, especially among girls, alongside some declines in motivation to understand how things work.

Key findings

  • In the overall sample, self-efficacy and information-seeking improved significantly: S3 “I can design a technological invention” had a moderate effect size (r = 0.334, p < 0.001), S12 “I have asked for or sought information about science before” had r = 0.331, p < 0.001, and S14 “I like understanding how things work” showed a downward trend with r = 0.293, p < 0.001.
  • Girls showed larger and more numerous significant gains: S3 r = 0.408, S2 “I think I am good at technology” r = 0.300, S12 r = 0.415, while S14 declined with r = 0.335. Boys showed only minor effect sizes and fewer significant differences, e.g., S3 r = 0.234, S5 r = 0.250, S10 r = 0.241, S14 r = 0.238.
  • Satisfaction was high and similar by gender: Q5 “Would you like to do more maker activities?” had means of 4.35 for boys and 4.42 for girls; Q7 “Have you enjoyed the ‘Makers a les Aules’ workshops?” had means of 4.20 for boys and 4.18 for girls, with no significant gender disparities.
  • Prior maker-tool experience was common and evenly distributed by gender: 71.38% had used Scratch, 31.13% Beebot, and 28.30% Makey Makey; open-ended responses showed 32.64% of boys and 32.56% of girls mentioned the prototype/robot category, while 11% disliked session 1 and 5% disliked the canvases.

Methods

  • Pre- and post-intervention surveys were collected across three annual editions (2021–2023) in 12 public primary schools in Barcelona; the initial N = 429 was reduced to N = 318 after screening (144 boys, 173 girls, 1 student who did not report gender), with students in grades 4–6, ages 9–12.
  • The intervention was a five-session workshop following Design Thinking phases (Empathise, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test) in which students created interactive prototypes using Scratch and Makey Makey.
  • Analysis used descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon tests for pre–post and gender comparisons, Mann-Whitney U tests for independent groups, and content analysis for open-ended questions; Likert items were treated as ordinal quantitative variables, missing data (0.896%) were median-imputed, and analyses were conducted in SPSS.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the instrument, though adapted from validated frameworks, was not formally revalidated for this age group and context, and that the five-session structure limited repeated Design Thinking iterations.
  • The paper states there was no longitudinal follow-up, so sustainability of changes could not be assessed, and other demographic factors such as socio-economic background, prior academic performance, and cultural context were not included.
  • Evident from the text: the study relies on self-report surveys without a control group, and the authors note that future work should include control-group and longitudinal designs.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10798-025-10001-6

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

15 of 72 cited sources checked · 5 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Much existing literature on self-efficacy and motivation in STEM has focused on secondary and higher education levels, leaving a gap in primary education.

    “While much of the existing literature has focused on self-efficacy at the secondary and higher education levels, a significant gap remains in understanding these dynamics within primary education.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Zeldin et al., 2008 source
    • cites Bilgin et al., 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Kelley et al., 2020 source

      The Introduction and Background literature: teacher self-efficacy discuss STEM teacher self-efficacy, and the study examines high school teachers. Neither section says that most existing research focuses on secondary and higher education or identifies a gap in primary education. Searches for primary or elementary education and for the claimed distribution of research found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.73)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    In performance-based evidence, especially ICT literacy assessments, girls perform better than boys.

    “However, there are some discrepancies when considering performance-based evidence (especially when using ICT literacy assessments) where it has been found that girls perform better than boys (Reinking & Martin, 2018;Siddiq & Scherer, 2019).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Reinking & Martin, 2018 source

      Section 3.3.3 discusses girls’ experiences with information technology in a STEM program, but reports attitudes and career aspirations, not ICT literacy assessment scores. Searches for ICT literacy assessments and girls outperforming boys found no passage in our copy making the claimed performance comparison. (LLM, conf=0.75)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Siddiq & Scherer, 2019 source
  • Premisecitation

    Higher self-efficacy correlates with better academic outcomes.

    “Research by Motlagh et al. (2011) and Hwang et al. (2016) has demonstrated that higher self-efficacy correlates with better academic outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Motlagh et al. (2011) source
    • cites Hwang et al. (2016) source
  • Premisecitation

    Self-efficacy is a pivotal factor that influences students' academic performance.

    “research has shown (Motlagh et al., 2011;Komarraju & Nadler, 2013;Hwang et al., 2016) the significance of recognizing self-efficacy as a pivotal factor that exerts influence on students' academic performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Motlagh et al., 2011 source
    • cites Komarraju & Nadler, 2013 source
    • cites Hwang et al., 2016 source
  • Premisecitation

    Maker activities embedded within project-based learning environments improve students' perceived competence in STEM subjects.

    “Empirical evidence suggests that when Maker activities are embedded within projectbased learning environments, students experience improvements in their perceived competence in STEM subjects (Sormunen et al., 2020;Sumantri et al., 2022).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Sormunen et al., 2020 source

      The Context of the Study describes maker activities embedded in a project-based learning project integrating science, engineering, and mathematics. The Discussion says the approach facilitated learning and competence building in heterogeneous science classes. Neither passage reports an improvement in students’ perceived competence in STEM subjects; the reported competences are not a measure of how competent students felt. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Sumantri et al., 2022 source

      The Abstract reports that maker-centered project-based learning significantly improved students’ graphic design skills and active learning. The Data Collected and Data Analysis section identifies those as the assessed outcomes; it does not report perceived competence in STEM subjects. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims. 35
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 25

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Innovative teaching strategies incorporating hands-on and applied learning experiences are beneficial for fostering STEM identities and increasing self-efficacy.

    “The application of innovative teaching strategies (as Design Thinking and Making) incorporating hands-on and applied learning experiences has been identified as beneficial for fostering STEM identities (Reinking & Martin, 2018) and increasing self-efficacy (Schlegel et al., 2019).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Reinking & Martin, 2018 source

      Sections 3.3.1 (Provide Experiences) and 3.3.3 (Facilitate Positivity and Curiosity) recommend hands-on, applied STEM experiences for girls and state that positive experiences improve students’ STEM identity. The copy does not identify Design Thinking or Making specifically as strategies that foster STEM identity. The self-efficacy claim is attached to a different citation and is not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Schlegel et al., 2019 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Stereotypes and a culture of social isolation often deter girls from STEM fields.

    “Reinking and Martin (2018) review strategies to engage girls in STEM, noting that stereotypes and a culture of social isolation often deter girls from such fields (Cheryan et al., 2015;Steinke, 2017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Reinking and Martin (2018) source
    • cites Cheryan et al., 2015 source

      The Abstract says that computer science and engineering are stereotyped as socially isolating and that these stereotypes reduce girls’ interest. The claim extends that finding to STEM fields broadly, whereas the paper focuses on computer science and engineering and notes that women have made inroads into other fields such as biology and chemistry. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Steinke, 2017 source

      The Introduction says that masculine stereotypes can negatively affect adolescent girls’ identification, interest, and participation in STEM. It also describes portrayals of STEM professionals as socially awkward people who work alone, but does not establish that an actual culture of social isolation deters girls. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Primary students in grades 4-6 are particularly receptive to hands-on, project-based learning, which can significantly influence their self-beliefs in science, technology, and design.

    “Prior research supports that primary students in these grades are particularly receptive to hands-on, project-based learning, which can significantly influence their self-beliefs in science, technology, and design (Wang & Degol, 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wang & Degol, 2013 source

      Section III (Schools; page not provided) says hands-on activities can increase students’ subjective task values and that teaching practices can support competence beliefs. It does not establish that grades 4–6 are particularly receptive to project-based learning or that such learning significantly changes self-beliefs in science, technology, and design. Section V (Intervention; page not provided) notes that experimental work with elementary and middle school students is limited. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Design Thinking in education is an iterative, hands-on process where students gather and apply knowledge and create novel products relevant to their lives.

    “Design Thinking in education is framed as an iterative, hands-on process where students not only gather and apply knowledge but also create novel”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Veldhuis et al., 2021 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Previous studies have indicated that boy students have typically exhibited a better attitude towards STEM than girl students, or that boys are more exposed to maker technologies/activities than girl students.

    “Previous studies have indicated that boy students have typically exhibited a better attitude towards STEM than girl students, or that boys are more exposed to maker technologies/activities than girl students (Andrews et al., 2021;Cheryan et al., 2017;Jones et al., 2000).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Andrews et al., 2021 source

      The Gender section (page unavailable) reports that male undergraduates in the makerspace study scored higher than female undergraduates on design, innovation, and technology self-efficacy. That supports a narrower gender difference than the claim’s general statement about boys’ attitudes toward STEM; the cited passages do not establish that boys had greater exposure to maker technologies or activities. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Cheryan et al., 2017 source
    • cites Jones et al., 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Most responses indicated high satisfaction.

    “While most responses indicated high satisfaction, some challenges were noted in early phases of the design process.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Some challenges were noted in early phases of the design process.

    “While most responses indicated high satisfaction, some challenges were noted in early phases of the design process.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    34.27% indicated the prototyping activity as their preferred aspect in Q7, while 9.7% mentioned it as what they liked least.

    “Even though 34.27% indicated the prototyping activity as their preferred aspect of the workshop in Q7, there is also a 9.7% of students who mentioned that this was what they liked the least.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Students' responses to Q5 and Q7 highlight strong willingness to participate in future Maker activities and overall satisfaction with the workshop experience.

    “These results highlight students' strong willingness to participate in future Maker activities (Q5) and their overall satisfaction with the workshop experience (Q7).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Boys' effect sizes are either minor or non-significant, even though they follow a similar trend as girls.

    “While the effect sizes are clear in the girls' sample, in boys' results these are either minor or non-significant to be reported, even though they follow a similar trend as those of the girls.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There are no significant gender disparities in satisfaction items Q3-Q7, displaying a consensual satisfaction level between both genders.

    “As for gender disparities in this set of questions, there are none that are significant enough to be worth mentioning, displaying a consensual satisfaction level between both genders.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No large or moderate effect sizes were reported in the motivation subconstruct, but item S14 displays a significant little to moderate effect size with a downward trend, meaning students have lesser motivation to understand how things work.

    “Motivation: No large nor moderate effect sizes were reported in the motivation subconstruct, however, item S14 displays a significant little to moderate effect size, however it is a downward trend, meaning students have lesser motivation to understand how things work.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Most students (71.38%) had previous experience using Scratch, followed by 31.13% using Beebot and 28.30% with Makey Makey.

    “Most students (71.38%) had previous experience using Scratch, followed by 31.13% using Beebot and 28.30% with Makey Makey.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Items Q5 and Q7 received the highest scoring, demonstrating students' willingness to take part in further maker activities and general satisfaction with the workshop.

    “Items Q5 and Q7 received the highest scoring, demonstrating students' willingness to take part in further maker activities during their course (Q5), as well as their general satisfaction with the workshop (Q7).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Item S3 displays a moderate effect size, indicating a significant positive self-perception on students' capacity of designing a technological invention.

    “Self-efficacy: Item S3 displays a moderate effect size, displaying a significant positive self-perception on students' capacity of designing a technological invention.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Item S14 shows a statistically significant small-to-moderate effect size, reflecting a downward trend and a slight decrease in students' motivation to understand how things work.

    “Although item S14 shows a statistically significant small-to-moderate effect size, it reflects a downward trend, indicating a slight decrease in students' motivation to understand how things work.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Item S12 displays a moderate effect size, indicating a significant positive trend on engagement in information-seeking behaviours by students.

    “Past behavior: Item S12 also displays a moderate effect size, displaying a significant positive trend on the engagement on information-seeking behaviours by students.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    11% of students mentioned they did not enjoy session 1, and 5% expressed dislike for the 'canvases'.

    “11% of students mentioned that they did not enjoy session 1, where the project was introduced, and their primary task was completing a canvas.Additionally, 5% expressed dislike for the 'canvases'.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Two items S10 and S14 experienced a modest decrease from pre- to post-test; S10 decreased only in girls, S14 in both genders.

    “In this context, two items: S10 'I want to do and learn about science' and S14 'I like understanding how things work,' experienced a modest decrease in their values from the pre-test responses compared to the post-test.The first aspect showed this decrease only in the case of girl students, while the second one demonstrated it in both genders.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For girls, all three constructs (Self-efficacy, Motivation and Past Behavior) were impacted to a significant degree.

    “All three constructs (Self-efficacy, Motivation and Past Behavior) of the Self-efficacy scale have been impacted to a significant degree:”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    23.27% and 6.6% of students enjoyed using the maker tools (Makey Makey and Scratch), respectively, and 7.5% expressed that 'everything' was enjoyable.

    “Following this, 23.27% and 6.6% of students enjoyed using the maker tools (Makey Makey and Scratch), respectively.Additionally, 7.5% expressed that 'everything' was enjoyable.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Some students faced challenges when completing certain documents especially in early phases, suggesting the need for additional guidance.

    “As a future implication to be considered by educators, we observed that some students faced challenges when completing certain documents especially in early phases, suggesting the need for additional guidance, especially for students requiring more support in writing activities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    32.64% of boy students and 32.56% of girl students referred to terms related to the prototype/robot category in their feedback.

    “Specifically, 32.64% of boy students referred to terms related to the prototype/robot category in their feedback, out of a total of 144 boys.For girl students, 32.56% were categorized in this code based on their feedback, out of a total of 173 girls.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In boys' results, only minor effect sizes are reported and there are fewer significant differences from pre to post.

    “In the boys' results, only minor effect sizes are reported as well as a lesser number of significant differences (p-value) from pre to post.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Bandura's social cognitive theory posits that self-efficacy influences behavior and academic outcomes.

    “Grounded in Bandura's social cognitive theory, which posits that self-efficacy influences behavior and academic outcomes, this study builds on prior findings regarding gender differences in STEM to examine whether innovative, hands-on teaching methods can enhance students' self-efficacy and motivation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bandura, 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    In technology-related aspects, there is a small yet statistically significant bias in favor of boys.

    “Research suggests that gender disparities towards STEM begins in childhood, previous studies have identified a consistent pattern when analyzing gender in technology-related aspects: a small yet statistically significant bias in favor of boys.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Schlegel et al. (2019) found no significant changes in Making interest, science interest, Maker identity, or STEM career interest.

    “However, there were no significant changes in Making interest, science interest, Maker identity, or STEM career interest.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Schlegel et al. (2019) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Fewer women pursue advanced STEM courses and careers despite comparable or superior performance to their male counterparts.

    “Gender discrepancies persist in STEM fields, with fewer women pursuing advanced STEM courses and careers despite comparable or superior performance to their male counterparts (Hill et al., 2010;Blackburn, 2017;Stewart-Williams & Halsey, 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Hill et al., 2010
    • cites Blackburn, 2017 source
    • cites Stewart-Williams & Halsey, 2021 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Early exposure to project-based learning approaches incorporating Design Thinking and Making can help foster positive attitudes toward STEM and reduce early gender disparities.

    “These findings suggest that early exposure to PBL approaches incorporating Design Thinking and Making can help foster positive attitudes toward STEM and reduce early gender disparities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Educators can influence girls' interest in STEM by incorporating hands-on, applied learning experiences, showcasing female role models, fostering positive STEM identities, and creating informal learning environments.

    “Educators can influence girls' interest in STEM by incorporating hands-on, applied learning experiences, showcasing female role models, fostering positive STEM identities, and creating informal learning environments (Dasgupta & Stout, 2014;Hughes et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Dasgupta & Stout, 2014 source
    • cites Hughes et al., 2013 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Boys tend to exhibit more favorable attitudes towards STEM and perceive themselves as more competent with technology than girls.

    “In essence, this suggests that boys tend to exhibit more favorable attitudes towards STEM and perceive themselves as more competent with technology than their girl classmates' counterparts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Mamaril et al. (2016) provide a perspective on engineering self-efficacy grounded in Bandura's theory, emphasizing theoretical knowledge and practical application and problem-solving capabilities.

    “Mamaril et al. (2016) provide a perspective on engineering self-efficacy grounded in Bandura's theory, emphasizing not only theoretical knowledge but also practical application and problem-solving capabilities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mamaril et al. (2016) source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Chu et al. (2015) propose determinants of a Maker mindset, including self-efficacy, motivation, and interest.

    “Chu et al. (2015) propose determinants of a Maker mindset, which include items related to self-efficacy (”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chu et al. (2015) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Unpaired pre- and post-responses reduced the sample from N=362 to N=318.

    “2nd screening layer: All pre-and post-responses that could not be paired were dismissed.This reduced the number of samples from N = 362 to N = 318.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Non-consent to participate reduced the sample from N=429 to N=362.

    “1st screening layer: Non-consent to participate.All data that did not receive a legal guardian's consent to participate was screened out.This reduced the number of samples from N = 429 to N = 362.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Missing values (0.896% of data) were replaced using median imputation.

    “3rd screening layer: Some responses had missing values, but since the number is quite reduced (representing 0.896% of the data: 96 missing vs. 10.400non-missing, completely at random with no clear patterns after analyzing data patterns), the missing values were replaced using median imputation, especially useful for non-parametric data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study did not include a longitudinal follow-up, which restricts the ability to assess the sustainability of observed changes in self-efficacy and motivation.

    “Third, the study did not include a longitudinal follow-up, which restricts the ability to assess the sustainability of observed changes in self-efficacy and motivation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Several studies recommend employing Design Thinking as a methodology to structure Maker project-based learning activities in early education.

    “When integrating Making into early education, several studies recommend employing Design Thinking as a methodology to structure Maker project-based learning activities (Smith et al., 2015;Lee et al., 2019;Yoon & Kang, 2021;Veldhuis et al., 2021;Xu et al., 2023).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Smith et al., 2015 source
    • cites Lee et al., 2019 source
    • cites Yoon & Kang, 2021

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The total number of participants was N=429, reduced to N=318 after rigorous data screening.

    “The total number of participants was N = 429 students.This number is reduced to N = 318 after rigorous data screening, which followed three screening layers:”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The 'Makers a les Aules' sessions had a more positive overall impact on girl students, with girls showing significant improvements on a greater number of items and larger magnitude compared to boys.

    “Based on the data presented in this section, we can conclude that the 'Makers a les Aules' sessions had a more positive overall impact on girl students.This is evident not only because girls showed significant improvements on a greater number of items, but also because the magnitude of those improvements was larger compared to boys.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Changes in self-efficacy and motivation from pre- to post-test are attributable to the 'Makers a les Aules' intervention rather than to other factors.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Students in grades 4-6 have demonstrated readiness for problem-solving and hands-on learning, making them particularly receptive to STEM interventions.

    “These grades (4th-6th) were selected because, at this developmental stage, students have demonstrated readiness for problem-solving and hands-on learning, making them particularly receptive to STEM interventions (National Research Council, 2012;Krajcik & Czerniak, 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites National Research Council, 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Krajcik & Czerniak, 2018 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Teachers and workshop facilitators were present in the classroom to support students as they completed the surveys.

    “In addition, to ensure comprehension, teachers and the workshop facilitators were present in the classroom to support students as they completed the surveys.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The task of building a technological prototype improves students' self-perception regarding their engineering skills, attitude towards technology and science, and ability to act as a designer.

    “Our results also indicate that the task of building a technological prototype of their proposed solution improves their self-perception regarding their engineering skills, connected to their attitude towards technology and science, and their ability to act as a designer.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Changes in self-efficacy and motivation from pre- to post-test are attributable to the 'Makers a les Aules' intervention rather than to other factors.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Other relevant demographic factors such as socio-economic background, prior academic performance, and cultural context were not included.

    “Finally, while the study examines gender as a key variable, other relevant demographic factors such as: socio-economic background, prior academic performance, and cultural context, were not included.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The use of an ad-hoc instrument may still introduce potential measurement biases.

    “Despite these efforts, the use of an ad-hoc instrument may still introduce potential measurement biases.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The instrument used was adapted from validated frameworks (Chu et al., 2015; Mamaril et al., 2016), but its psychometric properties were not formally revalidated for this specific age group and educational context.

    “Although the instrument used was adapted from validated frameworks (Chu et al., 2015;Mamaril et al., 2016), its psychometric properties were not formally revalidated for this specific age group and educational context.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Chu et al., 2015 source
    • cites Mamaril et al., 2016 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The survey was composed in Catalan and designed to be easily comprehensible for children, featuring emojis corresponding to each level of the Likert scale.

    “The survey was composed in Catalan and designed to be easily comprehensible for children, featuring emojis corresponding to each level of the Likert scale (Swaney-Stueve et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Swaney-Stueve et al., 2018 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    A consent form was provided to legal guardians of students under age 14.

    “As the students were under the age of 14, a consent form was provided to their legal guardians.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Wilcoxon tests were used because the data displayed non-normal distribution.

    “Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon tests (since our data displays non-normal distribution) for comparing variables between genders and to examine differences before and after the intervention, and content analysis for open-ended questions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The integration of maker education in schools remains an innovative practice that necessitates a deeper comprehension of the benefits and exploration of ways to reconfigure maker activities for integration within schools.

    “As pointed out by authors such as Papavlasopoulou et al. (2017) and Godhe et al. (2019), the integration of maker education in schools remains an innovative practice that necessitates, on one hand, a deeper comprehension of the benefits of this approach, and on the other hand, exploration of ways in which maker activities can be reconfigured for integration within schools.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Papavlasopoulou et al. (2017) source
    • cites Godhe et al. (2019) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Students were orally briefed on the research objectives and data privacy at the onset of Session 1.

    “Additionally, the students were orally briefed on the research objectives and the handling of their data privacy at the onset of Session 1.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    All collected data were de-identified for analysis.

    “All collected data were de-identified for analysis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The self-efficacy items (S1-S14) were inspired by the determinants of a Maker mindset proposed by Chu et al. (2015) and the engineering self-efficacy items proposed by Mamaril et al. (2016).

    “As for the design of the self-efficacy items (S1-S14), it is inspired by the determinants of a Maker mindset proposed by Chu et al. (2015) and the engineering self-efficacy items proposed by Mamaril et al. (2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Chu et al. (2015) source
    • cites Mamaril et al. (2016) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    STEM and Technology subjects are commonly chosen as suitable areas for the integration of maker education in schools.

    “The same authors also suggest that, generally, STEM and Technology subjects are commonly chosen as suitable areas for the integration of maker education in schools.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Papavlasopoulou et al. (2017) source
    • cites Godhe et al. (2019) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    These results align with the findings of Chu et al. (2017), who also observed that certain aspects of maker activities, while enjoyable for some students, may have a negative impact on their overall satisfaction of few ones.

    “These results align with the findings of Chu et al. (2017), who also observed that certain aspects of maker activities, while enjoyable for some students, may have a negative impact on their overall satisfaction of few ones.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chu et al. (2017) source
55 of 55

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Early educational experiences are pivotal in setting the foundation for future STEM learning and career choices.

    “Addressing this gap is vital, as early educational experiences are pivotal in setting the foundation for future STEM learning and career choices.”
    “Early educational experiences play a critical role in shaping long-term engagement with STEM subjects.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Maker activities are associated with increased motivation and self-beliefs in STEM.

    “Importantly, these activities have been associated with increased motivation and self-beliefs in STEM, which are critical for long-term academic engagement.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Design Thinking process fosters critical competencies such as creativity, logical thinking, communication, teamwork, critical thinking, and problem-solving.

    “This process fosters critical competencies such as creativity, logical thinking, communication, teamwork, critical thinking, and problem-solving.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is limited empirical evidence on how integrating Design Thinking and Maker Education can influence self-efficacy and motivation among primary school students.

    “Despite extensive research on self-efficacy in STEM, there is limited empirical evidence on how integrating Design Thinking and Maker Education can influence self-efficacy and motivation among primary school students.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Although gender disparities in STEM are well documented, their impact on self-efficacy at the primary level remains underexplored.

    “Furthermore, although gender disparities in STEM are well documented, their impact on self-efficacy at the primary level remains underexplored.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Changes in self-efficacy and motivation from pre- to post-test are attributable to the 'Makers a les Aules' intervention rather than to other factors.

    “Based on the data presented in this section, we can conclude that the 'Makers a les Aules' sessions had a more positive overall impact on girl students.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Iteration is a fundamental component of the Design Thinking methodology.

    “Iteration is a fundamental component of this methodology, and the short timeframe may have constrained students' ability to reflect, refine, and deepen their learning.”
7 of 7

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Q7 is misidentified as a preferred-activity question

    Minor

    The results attribute students' choice of prototyping as their preferred activity to Q7, but the questionnaire defines Q7 as a Likert-scale question about overall workshop enjoyment. Q8 asks what students liked most.

  • S11 is incorrectly listed as nonsignificant

    Minor

    The text names S11 as an exception to the significant pre-post results, but Table 4 reports p = 0.003 for S11, below the stated 0.05 threshold.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. SPSS, I. (2013). IBM SPSS statistics for windows. Armonk New York USA: IBM SPSS, 2, 119.
  2. Yoon, H. J., & Kang, I. (2021). Development of a model of maker education utilizing design thinking: Based on the complementary features. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 21(4), 707–722.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Santos, P., El Aadmi, K., Calvera-Isabal, M., & Rodríguez, A.
Affiliations
Universitat Pompeu Fabra (ES)
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Technology and Design Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-06-07
Volume
35
Issue
4
Pages
1293-1319
ISSN
  • 0957-7572 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1804
DOI
10.1007/s10798-025-10001-6
OpenAlex
W4411118296
Semantic Scholar
65a1df93832e8b30d1661dbcafefc897634d670f
Cited by
15
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 5
FWCI
16.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Technology and Design Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repositori digital de la UPF (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
Keywords
design thinking, maker education, project-based learning, self-efficacy, student motivation, gender gap in STEM, elementary school students, STEM education, social cognitive theory, technological prototype, Scratch, Makey Makey, attitudes toward STEM

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-08.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-08.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review