CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 97Engineering Education and PedagogyGender and Technology in EducationCareer Development and Diversity

Self-efficacy and belonging: the impact of a university makerspace

Open access
Andrews, Madison E., Borrego, Maura, Boklage, Audrey·2021·International Journal of STEM Education
DOI 10.1186/s40594-021-00285-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: In recent years, makerspaces have become increasingly common venues of STEM education and are rapidly being incorporated into undergraduate programs. These spaces give students and instructors access to advanced design technology and facilitate the incorporation of a wide variety of projects into the curriculum; however, their impacts on students are not yet fully understood. Using matched survey responses (i.e., repeated measures) from undergraduate students enrolled in engineering courses that assigned a makerspace-based project, we evaluate how the use of a university makerspace impacts students’ attitudes towards design, engineering, and technology. Further, we examine whether there are differences based on students’ year in program, gender, and race. Results: Paired t -tests were used to analyze whether and how nine factors changed within individual students over one semester. Analyses revealed that students who visited the facility showed significant gains in measures of innovation orientation, design self-efficacy, innovation self-efficacy, technology self-efficacy, belonging to the makerspace, and belonging to the engineering community. Subsequently, repeated measures analyses of variance (RMANOVAs) on the students who visited the makerspace revealed significant main effects of students’ year in program, gender, and race, as well as interactional effects of both year in program and race with time. Conclusions: These results affirm the value of incorporating makerspace-based projects into STEM curricula, especially during early coursework. However, our analyses revealed consistent gender gaps in measures of self-efficacy before and after using the makerspace. Similarly, gains in belonging to the makerspace were not equal across racial groups. We conclude that while makerspaces are fulfilling some of their promise for educating innovative problem solvers, more attention needs to be paid to avoid reproducing disparities in STEM education that are already experienced by female students and racial minorities.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s40594-021-00285-0

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • 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).”

    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 Andrews et al., 2021

    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

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Ali, P., Cooke, M., Culpepper, M. L., Forest, C. R., Hartmann, B., Kohn, M., & Wilczynski, V. (2016). The value of campus collaboration for higher education makerspaces International Symposium on Academic Makerspaces. American Society for Engineering Education (2016). Envisioning the future of the maker movement: Summit report. American Society for Engineering Education (2017). Advancing the maker movement: Making and makerspaces at engineering and engineering technology schools and departments and outside the engineering academic maker community.
  2. Brubaker, E. R., Kohn, M., & Sheppard, S. (2019). Comparing outcomes of introductory makerspace courses: The roles of reflection and multi-age communities of practice. International Symposium on Academic Makerspaces, New Haven.
  3. Dogan, B., Dogan, B., Ulku, E. E., Bas, A., & Erdal, H. (2020). The role of the maker movement in engineering education: Student views on key issues of makerspace environment. International Journal of Engineering Education, 36(4), 1161-1169.
  4. Hoople, G. D., Mejia, J. A., Hoffoss, D., & Devadoss, S. L. (2020). Makerspaces on the continuum: Examining undergraduate student learning in formal and informal settings. International Journal of Engineering Education, 36(4), 1184-1195.
  5. Jalal, M., & Anis, H. (2020). The integration of a maker program into engineering design courses. International Journal of Engineering Education, 36(4), 1252- 1270.
  6. tb01066.x. · DOI
  7. Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (2014). Making and tinkering: A review of the literature. National Research Council Committee on Out of School Time STEM, Issue.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Andrews, M. E., Borrego, M., & Boklage, A.
Affiliations
The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Borrego, Maura
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of STEM Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-03-31
Volume
8
Issue
1
ISSN
2196-7822 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s40594-021-00285-0
OpenAlex
W3165385571
Cited by
97
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 6
FWCI
101.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of STEM Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Architecture › Engineering Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Career Development and Diversity
Keywords
makerspaces, self-efficacy, sense of belonging, engineering education, undergraduate students, innovation self-efficacy, technology self-efficacy, gender gap, racial disparities, STEM equity

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