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

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 relationship between self‐assessment and performance in learning TPACK: Are self‐assessments a good way to support preservice teachers' learning?

“…While designing and creating teaching and learning materials, the preservice teachers need to use and reflect on a variety of digital tools they can use to develop his or her ideas and are additionally impelled to consider how their products will affect the learning process of the learners for which they are designed. It is suggested that especially intrinsic motivation and self‐efficacy are fostered while learning by creating in a makerspace (e.g., Andrews et al, 2021). To support the implementation of the project, the pedagogical makerspace provides an open offer that includes additional self‐learning materials such as tool tutorials, workshops and support staff who can assist with technical problems.…”

Designing Construction 4.0 Activities for AEC Classrooms

“…The makerspace of the School of Civil Engineering became the space for tinkering and the corresponding development of such activities. Makerspaces have become increasingly common venues of STEM and STEAM education and are rapidly being incorporated into undergraduate programs [33][34][35][36][37]. These spaces give students and instructors access to advanced design technology and facilitate the incorporation of a wide variety of projects into the curriculum.…”

What shapes implementation of a school-based makerspace? Teachers as multilevel actors in STEM reforms

“…Makerspaces are places where students can engage in these hands-on making experiences (Hatch, 2013). Pedagogical approaches used in making and makerspaces can support students' agency; inquiry with materials; approaches to design and problem solving; design self-efficacy; science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) literacy practices; and engagement in different and more equitable forms of STEM learning (Andrews et al, 2021;Bevan et al, 2015;Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2018;Martin et al, 2018;Puckett & Gravel, 2020;Sheridan et al, 2014; Page 2 of 22 Gravel and Puckett International Journal of STEM Education (2023) 10:7 2019). Schools are increasingly implementing making as a STEM reform effort (Martin, 2015), yet there are still relatively few studies that explore how schools adopt maker education in K-12 settings (e.g., Hansen et al, 2019;Kim & Sinatra, 2018;Rouse & Gillespie Rouse, 2022;Stornaiuolo & Nichols, 2018;Vongkulluksn et al, 2018).…”