Cited by 317Teaching and Learning ProgrammingDesign Education and PracticeEngineering Education and Pedagogy

Empirical studies on the Maker Movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review

Papavlasopoulou, Sofia, Giannakos, Michail N., Jaccheri, Letizia·2017·Entertainment Computing

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.entcom.2016.09.002

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L.
Affiliations
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
Corresponding author
Papavlasopoulou, Sofia
Venue
Entertainment Computing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-01
Volume
18
Pages
57-78
ISSN
1875-9521 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2507347859
Cited by
317
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 1
FWCI
36.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Entertainment Computing (publishedVersion)
Funders
Norsk Sykepleierforbund
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Architecture › Engineering Education and Pedagogy
Keywords
maker culture, 3D printing, robotics, computer numerical control, electronics, instructional design, educational technology, learning outcomes, classroom implementation, best practices

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.

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