The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Making the Maker: A Means-to-an-Ends approach to nurturing the Maker mindset in elementary-aged children
Open accessOverview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Chu et al. (2015) propose determinants of a Maker mindset, which include items related to self-efficacy (”
From 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 (2025) · cites this paper as Chu et al. (2015)
In the citing paper
“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.”
In the citing paper
“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).”
From 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 (2025) · cites this paper as Chu et al. (2015)
Citations
Cites
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Bloch, M. E. F., Lave, J., & Wenger, É. (1994) · Man · doi:10.2307/2804509 · Cited by 39,362
(1999) · Cited by 28,356
The four-phase model of interest development
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4 · Cited by 4,702
Motivating Project-Based Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Learning
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139 · Cited by 3,594
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.92.1.111 · Cited by 2,650
Academic Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy: How Different Are They Really?
Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1023/a:1021302408382 · Cited by 1,994
Motivating Project-Based Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Learning
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E. M., Marx, R. W., et al. (1991) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_8 · Cited by 1,120
Digital Fabrication and ‘Making’ in Education: The Democratization of Invention
Blikstein, P. (2013) · FabLab · doi:10.14361/transcript.9783839423820.203 · Cited by 672
Invent To Learn: Making, Tinkering and Engineering in the Classroom
Martinez, S. (2024) · doi:10.18260/1-2--27410 · Cited by 472
Using the fun toolkit and other survey methods to gather opinions in child computer interaction
Read, J. C., & MacFarlane, S. (2006) · ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC) · doi:10.1145/1139073.1139096 · Cited by 458
Obeng‐Odoom, F. (2021) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198867180.003.0008 · Cited by 450
Possible selves : theory, research and applications
Dunkel, C. S., & Kerpelman, J. L. (2006) · Cited by 280
Gumpertz, W. H. (1983) · Civil engineering · Cited by 278
Bdeir, A. (2009) · International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI) · doi:10.1145/1517664.1517743 · Cited by 237
The makers' movement and FabLabs in education
Blikstein, P., & Krannich, D. (2013) · ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC) · doi:10.1145/2485760.2485884 · Cited by 202
The Meaning of the Future: Toward a More Specific Definition of Possible Selves
Erikson, M. G. (2007) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.11.4.348 · Cited by 193
The Development of Scientific Concepts in Childhood.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2006) · doi:10.1037/11193-006 · Cited by 127
The dynamic interplay between perceived true self-knowledge and decision satisfaction.
Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A., Davis, W. E., Hirsch, K. A., & Smith, C. M. (2012) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0031183 · Cited by 107
Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference
(2012) · doi:10.1145/2414536 · Cited by 68
Chan, J., Pondicherry, T., & Blikstein, P. (2013) · ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC) · doi:10.1145/2485760.2485812 · Cited by 55
Stager, G. S. (2013) · ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC) · doi:10.1145/2485760.2485811 · Cited by 49
Posch, I., & Fitzpatrick, G. (2012) · Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference (OzCHI) · doi:10.1145/2414536.2414612 · Cited by 39
Digital fabrication for educational contexts
Krannich, D., Robben, B., & Wilske, S. (2012) · ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC) · doi:10.1145/2307096.2307174 · Cited by 10
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- C. Alexander, et al. Piloting innovative learning experiences: Measuring outcomes of digital fabrication activities across five classes, in: Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2013, 2013.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Empirical studies on the Maker Movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review
Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2017) · Entertainment Computing · doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2016.09.002 · Cited by 317
The State of Makerspace Research: a Review of the Literature
Mersand, S. (2020) · TechTrends · doi:10.1007/s11528-020-00566-5 · Cited by 142
Empowering children through design and making
Iivari, N., & Kinnula, M. (2018) · Participatory Design Conference · doi:10.1145/3210586.3210600 · Cited by 114
Assessing learning in technology-rich maker activities: A systematic review of empirical research
Lin, Q., Yin, Y., Tang, X., Hadad, R., & Zhai, X. (2020) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103944 · Cited by 90
Schlegel, R. J., Chu, S. L., Chen, K., Deuermeyer, E., Christy, A. G., & Quek, F. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103637 · Cited by 89
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Chu, S. L., Quek, F., Bhangaonkar, S., Ging, A. B., & Sridharamurthy, K.
- Affiliations
- Texas A&M University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Chu, Sharon Lynn
- Venue
- International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-09
- Volume
- 5
- Pages
- 11-19
- ISSN
- 2212-8689 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2195838439
- Cited by
- 132
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 15.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- erratum (2024-09-01)
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (CNS-1439614, DRL-1433770)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Robotics and Engineering
- Keywords
- making, maker mindset, maker identity, elementary school students, storytelling, self-efficacy, motivation, interest, STEM education, child-computer interaction
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
