![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Graphical Abstract
Abstract
People have been making since the first human used a tool, and have continued to create things for both fun and function. From building model trains to quilting, from woodworking to baking, people have for centuries been enriching their own lives by following their passions and enriching others’ lives by sharing their knowledge and the products of their labor. The recent “Maker Movement” celebrates the value of these hands-on activities, and the education community has recognized that making is a meaningful way for young people to engage in the same process that science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) professionals use to design solutions to real-world problems (CitationBlikstein and Krannich 2013; CitationVossoughi and Bevan 2014). Maker programs often use a Project-Based Learning (PBL) approach focused on process rather than product, supporting problem-solving and critical thinking. The Maker programs, however, are distinct from PBL in their particular emphasis on having participants use tools (sometimes digital), build objects, and engage in the engineering design process (EDP) (CitationChan and Blikstein 2018). Over the last 10 years, makerspaces have been opening up in science centers, museums, libraries, and schools, attracting people from all age groups and offering opportunities to brainstorm, plan, prototype, test, revise, and finalize creations that reflect makers’ personal interests (CitationHoney and Kanter 2013).
Acknowledgment
The program and research described in this article were funded by the National Science Foundation (grant #1614436).
In this final year of the program we are also collecting data that we will report on in a future article:
• Surveys of students’ STEM self-efficacy and career interest based on validated surveys (CitationBathgate, Shunn, and Correnti 2014; CitationChen and Usher 2013; CitationKier et al. 2014) and their understanding of the engineering design process (EDP).
• Assessments of students’ understanding of the EDP based on a validated assessment (CitationHsu, Cardella, and Purzer 2012)
• Audio and video recordings of 12 students’ social interactions over eight weeks
Names have been changed to protect student privacy.
Author Contributions
Wendy Martin ([email protected]) is research scientist at Education Development Center in New York, New York.
Regan Vidiksis ([email protected]) is research associate at Education Development Center in New York, New York.
Kristie Patten Koenig ([email protected]) is principal investigator of the ASD Nest Support Project and chair of the Department of Occupational Therapy at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development at New York University in New York, New York.
Yu-Lun Chen ([email protected]) is a PhD student in the Department of Occupational Therapy at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development at New York University in New York, New York.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Wendy Martin
Wendy Martin ([email protected]) is research scientist at Education Development Center in New York, New York.
Regan Vidiksis
Regan Vidiksis ([email protected]) is research associate at Education Development Center in New York, New York.
Kristie Patten Koenig
Kristie Patten Koenig ([email protected]) is principal investigator of the ASD Nest Support Project and chair of the Department of Occupational Therapy at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development at New York University in New York, New York.
Yu-Lun Chen
Yu-Lun Chen ([email protected]) is a PhD student in the Department of Occupational Therapy at the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development at New York University in New York, New York.