Maker Education in Primary Education: Changes in Students’ Maker-Mindset and Gender Differences
Open accessAbstract
Students must learn how to be prepared to enter the global digital network and acquire skills for the 21st century. Maker education allows for the development of such skills. This paper focuses on the implementation of Maker activities within a primary education context through a 10-hour programme across 10 schools. The study aims to analyse the possible impacts of maker education interventions on students’ Maker mindset (self-efficacy, interest and motivation), as well as assessing potential gender differences regarding their prior experience with Maker education and changes experienced on their Maker mindset. Questionnaires were administered before and after the programme's implementation on a sample of 239 students. Results showed that Maker interventions can have positive effects on students’ Maker mindset, increasing their self-efficacy, interest and motivation. In terms of gender differences, girls seemed to have less prior experience with Maker education than boys, yet they reported the same level of interest and motivation. This study contributes to demonstrating the positive impact that Maker education can have on primary education school settings in order to develop 21st century digital skills and bridging the gender gap in STEAM-related subjects.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The suitability of the survey items had been previously tested in a pilot study published by the same lead author (Martínez Moreno et al. 2021).
“However, the suitability of the survey items had been previously tested in a pilot study published by the same lead author (Martínez Moreno et al. 2021).”
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 Martínez Moreno et al. 2021
Section 2.2 (page unavailable) describes the survey items, their administration, and wording intended to be understandable to children. It does not say their suitability was tested in a pilot study; searches for a pilot, prior testing, and validation found no such passage. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Ong, M., Wright, C., Espinosa, L., & Orfield, G. (2011) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.81.2.t022245n7x4752v2 · Cited by 974 · see citing works
Chu, S. L., Quek, F., Bhangaonkar, S., Ging, A. B., & Sridharamurthy, K. (2015) · International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2015.08.002 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Chu, S. L., Angello, G., Saenz, M., & Quek, F. (2017) · Entertainment Computing · doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2016.08.007 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
컴퓨터교육과, 한., Lee, S., Kim, T., Kim, J., Kang, S., & Yoon, J. (2019) · Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education · doi:10.14352/jkaie.2019.23.1.73 · Cited by 5 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Through the combination of Maker activities and Design Thinking, relevant aptitudes such as creativity, problem solving and Computational Thinking can be developed beyond more specific STEM skills [22, 23].”
Method
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- Chalkiadaki, A. A systematic literature review of 21st century skills and competencies in primary education. International Journal of Instruction. 11(3) (2018) 1-16.
- Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn, 20 (2010), 51-76.
- van Laar, E. A.J.A.M. van Deursen, J.A.G.M. van Dijk, J. de Haan. The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72 (2017) 577-588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010 · DOI · Paper page
- Ritz, J.M., Fan, S.C. STEM and technology education: international state-of-the-art. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 25 (2015) 429-451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9290-z · DOI
- Honey, M., & Kanter, D. E. (Eds.). Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators. Routledge. (2013)
- Taylor, B. Evaluating the benefit of the maker movement in K-12 STEM education. Electronic International Journal of Education, Arts, and Science (EIJEAS). 2 (2016)
- Halverson, E.R., Sheridan, K. The Maker Movement in Education. Harvard Educational Review. 84(4) (2014) 495-504. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063 · DOI · Paper page
- Blikstein, P., & Krannich, D. The makers' movement and FabLabs in education: experiences, technologies, and research. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on interaction design and children (2013, June) (pp. 613-616).
- Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M.N., Jaccheri, L. Empirical studies on the Maker Movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review. Entertainment Computing. 18 (2017) 57-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2016.09.002 · DOI · Paper page
- Martin, L. The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER). 5(1) (2015) 4.
- Wing, J. Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM 49 (2006) 33-35.
- Yin, Y., Hadad, R., Tang, X., & Lin, Q. Improving and Assessing Computational Thinking in Maker Activities: the Integration with Physics and Engineering Learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology. (2019) 1-26.
- Ertl, B., Luttenberger, S., Paechter, M.. The impact of gender stereotypes on the self-concept of female students in STEM subjects with an under-representation of females. Frontiers in Psychology. 8 (2017) 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00703 · DOI
- McDaniel, A.. The role of cultural contexts in explaining cross-national gender gaps in STEM expectations. European Sociological Review, 32(1) (2016) 122-133. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcv078 · DOI
- Wajngurt, C., & Sloan, P. J. Overcoming Gender Bias in STEM: The Effect of Adding the Arts (STEAM). InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching. 14 (2019) 13-28.
- Jones, M.G., Howe, A., Rua, M.J. Gender differences in students' experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84(2) (2000) 180-192. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200003)84:2<180::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-X · DOI
- Stein, C., Nickerson, K. Botball robotics and gender differences in middle school teams. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, 2004. Retrieved from http://dpm.kipr.org/papers/asee04-gender.pdf
- Weinberg, J., Pettibone, J., Thomas, S., Stephen, M. The impact of robot projects on girls' attitudes toward science and engineering. Robotics Science and Systems (RSS) Workshop on Research in Robots, 1-2, 2007.
- Tuhkala, A., Wagner, M.L., Iversen, O.S., Kärkkäinen, T. Technology Comprehension-Combining computing, design, and societal reflection as a national subject. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. 20 (2019) 54-63.
- Milto, E., Rogers, C., Portsmore, M. Gender differences in confidence levels, group interactions, and feelings about competition in an introductory robotics course. In 32nd Annual Frontiers in Education. 2 (2002). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2002.1158224 · DOI
- Holbert, N. Bots for Tots: Building Inclusive Makerspaces by Leveraging" Ways of Knowing". In Proceedings of the The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. (2016, June) (pp. 79-88).
- Pinkard, N., Erete, S., Martin, C. K., & McKinney de Royston, M. Digital youth divas: Exploring narrative-driven curriculum to spark middle school girls' interest in computational activities. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 26(3) (2017) 477-516.
- Nourbakhsh, I.R., Hamner, E., Crowley, K., Wilkinson, K. Formal measures of learning in a secondary school mobile robotics course. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2004). Proceedings. ICRA '04. 2004 (p. 1831-1836 Vol.2). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2004.1308090 · DOI
- Kafai, Y., Fields, D., & Searle, K. Electronic textiles as disruptive designs: Supporting and challenging maker activities in schools. Harvard Educational Review. 84(4) (2014) 532-556.
- Chu, S. L., Schlegel, R., Quek, F., Christy, A., & Chen, K.. 'I Make, Therefore I Am' The Effects of Curriculum-Aligned Making on Children's Self-Identity. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. (2017, May) (pp. 109-120).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Santos, P., El Aadmi, K., Calvera-Isabal, M., & Rodríguez, A. (2025) · International Journal of Technology and Design Education · doi:10.1007/s10798-025-10001-6 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
“…that boys often report more extracurricular experience with electronic tools (Jones et al., 2000; Dou et al., 2019), which may contribute to differences in confidence levels between genders in subjects such as mathematics, science, and technology (Martínez Moreno et al. 2021; Schaper 2024).”
Self-citation
- Authors
- Martínez Moreno, J., Santos, P., & Hernandez-Leo, D.
- Affiliations
- Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain
- Universitat Pompeu Fabra- Barcelona, Spain
- Venue
- Ninth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM'21)
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2021-10-26
- Pages
- 120-125
- OpenAlex
- W4200262801
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 2.04
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Ninth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM'21) (publishedVersion)
- Repositori digital de la UPF (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (PID2020-112584RB-C33)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Robotics and Engineering
- Keywords
- maker education, maker mindset, primary education, gender differences, self-efficacy, student motivation, maker activities
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
