CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 775Teaching and Learning ProgrammingDesign Education and PracticeEngineering Education and Pedagogy

The Promise of the Maker Movement for Education

Open access
Martin, Lee·2015·Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER)
DOI 10.7771/2157-9288.1099
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The Maker Movement is a community of hobbyists, tinkerers, engineers, hackers, and artists who creatively design and build projects for both playful and useful ends. There is growing interest among educators in bringing making into K-12 education to enhance opportunities to engage in the practices of engineering, specifically, and STEM more broadly. This article describes three elements of the Maker Movement, and associated research needs, necessary to understand its promise for education: 1) digital tools, including rapid prototyping tools and low-cost microcontroller platforms, that characterize many making projects; 2) community infrastructure, including online resources and in-person spaces and events; and 3) the maker mindset, aesthetic principles, and habits of mind that are commonplace within the community. It further outlines how the practices of making align with research on beneficial learning environments.

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 · 10.7771/2157-9288.1099

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • Makerspace teachers cannot assume that access would lead to increased use, and increased use to improved learning, particularly for culturally and linguistically diverse children and families.

    “Makerspace teachers cannot assume that ''access would lead to increased use, and increased use to improved learning'' (p.37), particularly for culturally and linguistically diverse children and families.”

    From Who Is Welcome Here? A Culturally Responsive Content Analysis of Makerspace Websites (2020) · cites this paper as Martin (2015)

    In “Connecting the Maker Movement to Education,” Martin describes the assumption that access to classroom computers would increase use and improve learning, then warns that a tool-centric approach to making will fail. This supports the warning to makerspace teachers, but the passage does not specifically address culturally and linguistically diverse children and families. Our copy does not provide a page number for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Martin (2015) conceptualized three essential elements of the maker movement: digital tools, community infrastructure, and the maker mindset.

    “Martin (2015) conceptualized three essential elements of the maker movement: digital tools, community infrastructure, and the maker mindset.”

    From Who Is Welcome Here? A Culturally Responsive Content Analysis of Makerspace Websites (2020) · cites this paper as Martin, 2015

  • Websites have been a driving force of the maker movement.

    “Websites have been a driving force of the maker movement (Martin, 2015), but scholarship has only recently begun to explore this platform.”

    From Who Is Welcome Here? A Culturally Responsive Content Analysis of Makerspace Websites (2020) · cites this paper as Martin, 2015

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: 50

  1. Azevedo, F. S. (2011). Lines of practice: A practice-centered theory of interest relationships. Cognition and Instruction, 29(2), 147-184.
  2. Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49(4), 193-224.
  3. Barron, B., Walter, S. E., Martin, C. K., & Schatz, C. (2010). Predictors of creative computing participation and profiles of experience in two Silicon Valley middle schools. Computers & Education, 54(1), 178-189.
  4. Blikstein, P. (2008). Travels in Troy with Freire: Technology as an agent for emancipation. In Noguera, P., & Torres, C. A. (Eds.), Social justice education for teachers: Paulo Freire and the possible dream (pp. 205- 244). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
  5. Blikstein, P. (2013a). Digital fabrication and 'making' in education: The democratization of invention. In Walter-Herrmann, J., & Bu ¨ching, C. (Eds.), FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors. Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers.
  6. Blikstein, P. (2013b). Seymour Papert's legacy: Thinking about learning, and learning about thinking. Presentation given at Interaction, Design, and Learning conference, New York. Retrieved from: https://tltl. stanford.edu/content/seymour-papert-s-legacy-thinking-about-learning- and-learning-about-thinking.
  7. Buckingham, D. (2008). Youth, identity, and digital media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  8. Carr, R. L., Bennett, L. D., & Strobel, J. (2012). Engineering in the K-12 STEM standards of the 50 U.S. states: An analysis of presence and extent. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 539-564. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00061.x. · DOI
  9. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  10. Culp, K. M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279-307.
  11. Dixon, C., & Martin, L. (2014). Make to relate: Narratives of, and as, community practice. In Polman, J. L., Kyza, E. A., O'Neill, D. K., Tabak, I., Penuel, W. R., Jurow, A. S., O'Connor, K., Lee, T., & D'Amico, L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014. Boulder, CO (pp. 1591-1592).
  12. Dougherty, D. (2013). The maker mindset. In Honey, M., & Kanter, D. E. (Eds.), Design. Make. Play. Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 7-16). New York, NY: Routledge.
  13. Dweck, C. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.
  14. Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103-120.
  15. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554-567.
  16. Engle, R. A., Lam, D. P., Meyer, X. S., & Nix, S. E. (2012). How does expansive framing promote transfer? Several proposed explanations and a research agenda for investigating them. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 215-231.
  17. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43.
  18. Gutierrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19-25.
  19. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In Stevenson, H., Assume, H., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262-272). New York, NY: Freeman.
  20. Heath, S. B. (2012). Seeing our way into learning science in informal environments. In Tate, W. F. (Ed.), Research on schools, neighbor- hoods, and communities: Toward civic responsibility (pp. 249-267). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  21. Honey, M., & Kanter, D. E. (2013). Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of science innovators. In Honey, M., & Kanter, D. E. (Eds.), Design. Make. Play. Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 1-6). New York, NY: Routledge.
  22. Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B., Horst, H. A., Lange, P. G., Mahendran, D., Martı ´nez, K. Z., Pascoe, C., (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  23. Kafai, Y. B., & Peppler, K. A. (2011). Youth, technology, and DIY: Developing participatory competencies in creative media production. Review of Research in Education, 35(1), 89-119.
  24. Kalil, T. (2013). Have fun-learn something, do something, make something. In Honey, M., & Kanter, D. E. (Eds.), Design. Make. Play. Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 12-16). New York, NY: Routledge.
  25. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379-424.
  26. Koschmann, T., Kuutti, K., & Hickman, L. (1998). The concept of breakdown in Heidegger, Leont'ev, and Dewey and its implications for education. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(1), 25-41.
  27. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1-32.
  28. Kuznetsov, S., & Paulos, E. (2010). Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures. Proceedings of NordiCHI, Reykjavik, Iceland.
  29. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  30. Martin, L., Dixon, C., & Hagood, D. (2014). Distributed adaptations in youth making. Paper presented at FabLearn: Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education, Stanford, CA.
  31. Martin, L., & Schwartz, D. L. (2009). Prospective adaptation in the use of external representations. Cognition and Instruction, 27(4), 1-31.
  32. Mercier, E. M., Higgins, S. E., & Joyce-Gibbons, A. (2014). The effects of room design on computer-supported collaborative learning in a multi- touch classroom. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-19. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2014.881392. · DOI
  33. McDermott, R. (1993). The acquisition of a child by a learning disability. In Chaiklin, S., & Lave, J. (Eds.), Understanding practice (pp. 269- 305). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  34. National Research Council (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  35. National Research Council (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  36. National Research Council (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K-12 Science Education Standards, Board on Science Education, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  37. Okita, S. Y., & Schwartz, D. L. (2013). Learning by teaching human pupils and teachable agents: The importance of recursive feedback. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(3), 375-412.
  38. Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In Papert, S., & Harel, I. (Eds.), Constructionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  39. Pellegrini, A. D. (2009). The role of play in human development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  40. Perkins, D., Tishman, S., Ritchhart, R., Donis, K., & Andrade, A. (2000). Intelligence in the wild: A dispositional view of intellectual traits. Educational Psychology Review, 12(3), 269-293. doi: 10.1023/ a:1009031605464. · DOI
  41. Petrich, M., Wilkinson, K., & Bevan, B. (2013). It looks like fun, but are they learning? In Honey, M., & Kanter, D. E. (Eds.), Design. Make. Play. Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 50-70). New York, NY: Routledge.
  42. Quinn, H., & Bell, P. (2013). How designing, making, and playing relate to the learning goals of K-12 science education. In Honey, M., & Kanter, D. (Eds.), Design. Make. Play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 17-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
  43. Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Eisenberg, M. (2000). Beyond black boxes: Bringing transparency and aesthetics back to scientific investigation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(1), 7-30.
  44. Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. In Honey, M., & Kanter, D. (Eds.), Design. Make. Play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 163-181). New York, NY: Routledge.
  45. Resnick, M., & Silverman, B. (2005). Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children Conference, Boulder, CO.
  46. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97-115). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  47. Sheridan, K. M., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B. K., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T . (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505-531.
  48. Soep, E. (2014). Participatory politics: Next-generation tactics to remake public spheres. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  49. Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312(5777), 1143-1144.
  50. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martin, L.
Affiliations
University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Martin, Lee
ORCID
Martin, Lee
Venue
Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER)
Publisher
Purdue University (bepress)
Published
2015-04-29
Volume
5
Issue
1
ISSN
2157-9288 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.7771/2157-9288.1099
OpenAlex
W263347116
Cited by
775
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 107 · 2023: 78 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 108 · 2020: 110 · 2019: 82 · 2018: 67 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 3
FWCI
65.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Purdue e-Pubs (Purdue University System) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Spencer Foundation (201300079)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
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, K-12 education, engineering practice, STEM education, rapid prototyping, microcontroller platforms, maker mindset, maker communities, learning environment, tinkering

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