The impact of Science Literacy delivery methods - what works? Single mechanism analysis Working Paper Festivals | Group 4. Activities and services V1.0 | 10 December 2018

1. Network for Information and Digital Access
The impact of Science Literacy delivery methods - what works?
Single mechanism analysis report
Makerspaces | Group 4. Activities and services
V 1.0 | 10 December 2018
WORKING PAPER
Team members
Valentina De Col | Lead Researcher, NIDA
Kamran Naim | Executive Director, NIDA
Carol Priestley | Senior Advisor, NIDA
Carol Usher | Manager, Publicity & Dissemination, NIDA
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Co-financed by Evergreen Education Foundation (EEF) and NIDA

2. ii
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
1.1 This report presents a synthesis of the proven impact, strengths and weaknesses of
makerspaces in delivering science literacy.
1.2 This individual analysis is situated within the framework of a broad study of science literacy
aimed to establish what has been proven successful in the field; with the objective to
promote and adapt good practices and fill gaps in knowledge about ‘what works’.
1.3 The full study identified 42 single-mechanism approaches, 2 composite approaches and 1
related approach. ‘Makerspaces’ is categorized within Group 4 relating to ‘Activities and
Services’.
2. Methodology for resource discovery and analysis
2.1 From October 2017 to May 2018, the research team surveyed existing resources through
retrieval via research databases, subject databases, open access repositories and through
contact with interested organisations, institutions and individuals.
2.2 The resources were divided into impact assessments (IAs) and descriptive resources. For the
purposes of analysis, only those published during the years 2013 -2018 were utilised. Each
resource was read in detail, significant data was extracted and entered into a specifically
developed database. An example of the database mask is included in Appendix A.
2.3 Although the total number of resources located was not designed to be exhaustive or
definitive, the resources captured in this research are limited to those available in the
English language and to translations that had already been made from other languages into
English.
3. Overview of results
3.1 Over 2,100 IA studies and descriptive resources were identified in the full research process,
of which 27 relate specifically to ‘makerspaces’; of which 21 were published between 2013-
2018 (May). In view of the potential importance of makerspaces in delivery of science
literacy, consideration is now being given to an updated search to cover March to December
2018.
3.2 The subject coverage included science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM),
mathematics and broadly science education. The countries included in the studies were
United States of America (16), but also with examples from Australia (4), Canada (1), Estonia
(1), Indonesia (1), Mexico (1) and New Zealand (1).
3.3 The delivery models involved were implemented for two-thirds in formal education (66.7%)
and or one-third in non-formal education (33.3%). The target audiences were 66.7%
education and training, 29.6% population groups and 3.7% workers. The audiences were
reached through educational institutions (85.7%), ‘others’ (9.5%) and ‘various’ (4.8%).
3.4 The approaches to conducting assessment within the resources were found to be equally
mixed-method and qualitative, followed by quantitative. The most common data collection
approaches involved written or online surveys.

3. iii
4. Discussion
4.1 The makerspace phenomenon has morphed into three readily identifiable types
characterised by accessibility: dedicated, distributed, and mobile. Initially emerging from
universities, makerspaces are now found in locations ranging from industrial estates to high
streets, schools, museums and libraries.
4.2 Despite increased interest by educators of the potential of makerspaces in engaging
students in active learning, there is a lack of empirical evidence to demonstrate the
effectiveness, content and processes of learning in makerspaces.
4.3 The resources presented in this analysis offer a selection of current studies and impact
assessments involving makerspaces based on resources published from January 2013 to
March 2018. This report will be subsequently updated to include studies published between
April to December 2018.
4.4 The apparent dearth of recent impact assessments may indicate an urgent need for further
research on approaches to assess learning in makerspaces.
4.5 The reviewed studies range from primary school STEM-related studies (in Indonesia and
Australia), contextualized mathematics education for African American elementary and
middle-school students in the United States, through to university settings, most frequently
for undergraduate engineering students, but also pre-nursing and pre-professional health
contexts. Makerspaces were also used in professional development activities in STEM for
teachers and campus administrators in the United States.
4.6 Studies related to library makerspaces included experiences in the United States, New
Zealand and Estonia, as well as studies of makerspaces in museums, and mobile
makerspaces in the United States and rural Australia.
4.7 Studies have also been conducted surveying the makerspace landscape (specifically in the
United States), as well as assessments of makerspaces and FabLabs across multiple
countries, and a wide and current literature on a variety of facets of makerspaces.
4.8 The majority of studies reported positive impacts of makerspaces on awareness, knowledge
or understanding, which included knowledge on niche topics (for engineering students),
increased creativity and skills acquisition, competence in the use and application of new
technologies, and an overall gain in mathematical test scores.
4.9 Increased interest and engagement was reported in studies using makerspaces among
participants in a professional development program (in the United States), among
Indonesian primary students in STEM related activities, and for participants with mobile
makerspaces.
4.10 Positive attitude changes were reported by makerspace participants, ranging from medical
and biomedical engineering undergraduate students, to minority elementary and middle
school students attitudes towards STEM. Studies reported positive attitudes among STEM
teachers in professional development programs, as well as multiple reports of increased
confidence, self-confidence and motivation in makerspace related tasks, technology use,
proficiency and application.
4.11 Studies further reported positive behavioural changes, with increased willingness to
participate in more makerspace activities, increased motivation and reduced anxiety in
engineering and design related tasks.

4. iv
4.12 Skill development in makerspace related activities (particularly related to design,
manufacturing and teamwork) were reported, as well as improved problem solving and
group communication skills.
4.13 A range of other multifaceted impacts were reported that included enjoyment, personal and
professional development, and socialisation.
4.14 Makerspaces have a range of reported strengths, particularly related to increased
engagement with STEM knowledge, and the development and demonstration of 21st-
century skills such as problem-solving, critical and creative thinking, collaboration and
communication.
4.15 Studies further highlighted the potential for makerspaces in advancing interest in STEM
careers, in particular for underrepresented populations (namely people of colour and
women) in STEM.
4.16 Makerspaces also have the reported potential to cultivate creativity and innovation in
universities, as well as recasting the role of libraries and the impact they can have on local
communities.
4.17 Makerspaces provide an opportunity for meaningful community engagement: acting as
social spaces; supporting wellbeing; serving the needs of the communities in which they are
located; and providing outreach centers for excluded groups.
4.18 The reported weaknesses of makerspaces primarily relate to the lack of teacher preparation,
skill sets, expertise regarding how to use technology, pedagogical knowledge and limited
access to technology and resources, that can limit students’ potential to be positively
impacted by the experience.
4.19 Student anxiety in participating in makerspaces was further highlighted as a significant
barrier for students.
4.20 Despite the open nature of makerspaces, the fact that most early adopters of makerspaces
were affluent males, the benefits available through these facilities might not be evenly
available.
4.21 Improving STEM education through makerspaces in developed and developing countries
remains a challenge due to resource constraints.
4.22 The process of learning through makerspace require the development of appropriate tools
of assessment and analysis, in line with the challenges that still exist in measuring the impact
of informal learning environments. Mixed method approaches may help in this regard.
5. Conclusions
5.1 Makerspaces are having a transformative impact on STEM education, and have grown
rapidly in universities, schools, libraries and museums with the aim to encourage deep
engagement with STEM-integrated content, critical thinking, problem-solving and
collaboration.
5.2 Makerspaces reveal a huge potential to benefit individuals but also entire communities,
acting as a community hub, where people come to work together, learn from each other or
simply socialise, imparting value in a range of ways.
5.3 There remains a paucity of empirical research evaluating makerspaces and making, and
makerspaces and learning. The form of complex interdisciplinary learning taking place in
makerspaces demands new forms of assessments.

5. v
5.4 There is growing interest to understand the outcomes of makerspace programmes, to
improve current practices, and overcome current and future STEM-education related
challenges.

6. vi
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... ii
Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... vii
Mechanisms, groups and approaches ........................................................................................ 4 1.
Methodology for resource discovery and analysis ..................................................................... 5 2.
Search method ....................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.
Data extraction for the analysis ............................................................................................. 6 2.2.
Limitations of the resource discovery .................................................................................... 6 2.3.
Overview of results ................................................................................................................... 6 3.
Total number of resources discovered .................................................................................. 6 3.1.
Scientific subjects .................................................................................................................. 6 3.2.
Countries involved in the studies ........................................................................................... 7 3.3.
Educational delivery models .................................................................................................. 8 3.4.
Target sectors ........................................................................................................................ 8 3.5.
Delivery institutions ............................................................................................................... 9 3.6.
Approach to data collection ................................................................................................... 9 3.7.
Sampling technique and sample size ................................................................................... 10 3.8.
Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 10 4.
Contexts of use .................................................................................................................... 10 4.1.
Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 17 4.2.
4.2.1. Awareness, knowledge or understanding ............................................................................ 17
4.2.2. Engagement or interest ........................................................................................................ 17
4.2.3. Attitude ................................................................................................................................ 18
4.2.4. Behaviour ............................................................................................................................. 18
4.2.5. Skills ...................................................................................................................................... 19
4.2.6. Others ................................................................................................................................... 19
Strengths .............................................................................................................................. 20 4.3.
Weaknesses ......................................................................................................................... 21 4.4.
Costs and feasibility ............................................................................................................. 22 4.5.
Suggestions for improved methodologies and for future studies ....................................... 22 4.6.
Conclusions and overview ........................................................................................................ 25 5.
APPENDIX A: Example of data input mask ..................................................................................... 26
APPENDIX B: Selected bibliography ............................................................................................... 28

7. vii
Acronyms
3D three-dimensional
AM additive manufacturing
DIY do it yourself
EFT exploration and fabrication technologies
GPA grade point average
ME multidisciplinary education
STEAM science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics
STEM science, technology, engineering and mathematics

8. 4
Mechanisms, groups and approaches 1.
During the first part of the Desk Research phase of this project (i.e. Task 1), the research team
identified 42 single-mechanism approaches, 2 composite approaches and 1 related approach that
were relevant to the delivery and dissemination of scientific information. The list of single
mechanisms was further organised into 7 thematic groups, as presented in Table 1.
The subject of this report is ‘Makerspaces’, included in Group 4 relating to ‘Activities and
services’.
Single mechanism approach Group
Exhibitions, Expo, Festivals, Movies, Picnics,
Science fairs, Seminars, Talks, TED Talks, Theatre,
Workshops
1. Events, meetings, performances
Colloquia, Courses, Curricula, E-learning, Webinars
2. Education and training – including online
Animations, Books, Brochures, Cartoons, Comics,
Games, Graphics, Posters, Publications, Radio,
Reports, TV, Videos
3. Traditional publishing and journalism –
print and broadcast
Competitions, Experiments, Makerspaces, Mobile
classrooms, Mobile laboratories
4. Activities and services
Blogs, E-books, E-zines, Mobile Apps, Podcasts, Social
media, Websites, Wikis
5. Online interactions
Composite approaches
Multiliteracies
Multimodalities
Related approach
Citizen Science
Table 1. Organisation of the delivery approaches of science literacy adopted in this research.
For the purposes of this study, the definition of ‘Makerspaces’ broadly refers to ‘a place in which
people with shared interests, especially in computing or technology, can gather to work on projects
while sharing ideas, equipment, and knowledge’1
and ‘spaces that enable participants to create a
range of artefacts using specialist tools and resources, such as electronics, laser cutters, 3D printers,
in addition to everyday resources, both digital and non-digital’ (Marsh et al. 2017). A more
comprehensive description of this mechanism is presented in chapter 4.1.
1
“Makerspaces”, Oxford Dictionaries, Accessed 28 December 2018,
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/makerspace

9. 5
Methodology for resource discovery and analysis 2.
Search method 2.1.
From October 2017 to May 2018, the research team carried out an extensive process of resource
discovery to survey existing works and impact studies that could provide valuable evidence on the
impact of the identified science delivery approaches and mechanisms.
The search was carried out by retrieving documents and articles from a wide range of sources,
including research databases, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, subject databases and open access
repositories. The use of non-boolean keyword combinations returned a consistent number of
relevant results from prominent academic journals and online library databases (e.g. ERIC, Frontiers,
JCOM, MedLine/PubMed, Nature, NCBI, Wiley Online Library, PLOS, SAGE, ScienceDirect, Springer,
Web of Science). Moreover, the findings were complemented by relevant resources such as theses
and manuscripts retrieved from university repositories, reports and case studies from different
organisations and NGOs. In addition, contact was made with researchers via the ResearchGate
community and single individuals from NIDA’s Facebook and LinkedIn pages who expressed interest
in the research and directly contributed by providing annotated bibliographies for their fields of
expertise.
The resource discovery was performed by combining the mechanism name with 1 of the 5
keywords/synonyms for ‘impact’ and 1 of the 10 literacies and sub-sector literacies identified by the
Team, one combination at a time. The search strategy is exemplified in Table 2.
Approach Terms for impact Literacy and sub-sector literacies
[mechanism name]
e.g. theatre
Impact
Impact assessment
Assessment
Performance measurement
Outcomes
Agricultural Literacy
Chemistry Literacy
Climate Literacy
Computer Literacy
Earth Science Literacy
Food safety Literacy
Health Literacy
Nutrition Literacy
Science Literacy
Statistical Literacy
Table 2. Search strategy using keywords combinations.
This method generated a total number of 50-word combinations (to illustrate one single
example: ‘theatre impact science literacy’) for each of the science delivery mechanisms investigated.
The articles and materials selected for the analysis span between 2013 and 2018 and were
initially sorted into two main groups: one containing impact assessments that provide a qualitative,
quantitative or mixed method (both qualitative and quantitative) research approaches to data
collection; and a second including different typologies of descriptive resources, e.g. reviews, guides,
handbooks, reports. Resources were organised by mechanism and the principal metadata (e.g. title,
author, date, scientific subject) saved on a Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet prior to database import.

10. 6
Data extraction for the analysis 2.2.
The identified impact assessments were subsequently uploaded to a Microsoft Access® database,
developed by the Team to collect relevant information from each study. An example of the database
mask for data entry is included in Appendix A. Each article was read in detail, and significant data
were extracted, entered into the database and used as core information to carry out the analysis.
Limitations of the resource discovery 2.3.
The resource discovery was limited to resources available in English language, and studies in other
languages were only included where translations had already been made to English2
. Another
intrinsic limitation may lie within the search methodology, particularly on the keyword
combinations, and may explain a low number of articles for some of the mechanisms investigated.
Moreover, the total number of resources located is not meant to be exhaustive or definitive. It is
a work in progress that attempts to offer a synthesis of examples spanning across different literacies
and sub-sector literacies, with no geographical limitations, with the aim to contribute to the
understanding of science, its applications, and to the promotion of science literacy.
Overview of results 3.
Total number of resources discovered 3.1.
Over 2,100 impact assessment studies and descriptive resources were identified in the full research
process, of which 27 relate specifically to ‘Makerspaces’. However, for the purposes of analysis a
decision was taken to concentrate on those published between 2013-2018, as presented in Table 3,
to provide more current information.
Resources (2013-2018) Number
Impact assessments 21
Descriptive resources 33
Total no. of resources analysed 54
Table 3. Total number of resources analysed.
Scientific subjects 3.2.
The main subjects of the impact assessments are synthesized in Table 4. The systematic
categorisation of science branches was retrieved from Wikipedia3
and customised for the purpose of
the research.
2
The research and analysis methodologies will, however, be available from NIDA in English, French and Spanish in order
that others may utilise and/or translate and adapt, replicate and extend the coverage.
3
“Branches of science”, Wikipedia, Accessed January 26, 2018, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science

11. 7
Main subject area Detailed subject References
Applied / STEM
4
General
Forest et al. 2014; Foth,
Lankester, and Hughes
2016; Morocz et al. 2016;
Lagoudas et al. 2016;
Blackley et al. 2017;
Blikstein et al. 2017;
Galaleldin et al. 2017;
Ludwig, Nagel, and Lewis
2017; Sheffield et al. 2017;
Sinha et al. 2017; Tomko et
al. 2017; Blackley et al. 2018
Formal Mathematics Tillman et al. 2014
Social Science education
5
Sheridan et al. 2014; Litts 2015;
Gahagan 2016; Lille 2016;
Marshall 2016; McCubbins
2016; Miller 2016; Miller,
Christensen, and Knezek 2017
Table 4. Main scientific subjects of the resources analysed.
Countries involved in the studies 3.3.
The countries where the studies have taken place are listed in Table 5 and can be visualized on the
world map in Figure 1.
Countries No. of studies for each country
United States of America (US) 16
Australia 4
Canada, Estonia, Indonesia, Mexico, New Zealand 1
Table 5. Number of impact assessment studies for each country.
4
Science, technology, engineering mathematics (STEM).
5
Including assessment methodologies in makerspaces.

12. 8
Figure 1. Geographic distribution of the impact assessment studies [Map generated with amcharts.com].
Educational delivery models 3.4.
The educational delivery models employed in each study are presented in Table 6. The Team
summarised specific models of delivery, whether formal, non-formal or programmatic (namely,
embedded in a programme) and included, for convenience of future discussion, a distinction
towards examples related to health literacy. The relative percentage displayed in the Table is
expressed over the total number of impact assessment analysed (n=21).
Model of delivery Sector References
Formal education
(14) 66.7%
Pure & Applied
Sciences
Forest et al. 2014; Tillman et al. 2014; Lagoudas et al.
2016; Marshall 2016; Miller 2016; Blackley et al. 2017;
Blikstein et al. 2017; Galaleldin et al. 2017; Ludwig, Nagel,
and Lewis 2017; Miller, Christensen, and Knezek 2017;
Sheffield et al. 2017; Sinha et al. 2017; Tomko et al. 2017;
Blackley et al. 2018
Non-formal education
(7) 33.3%
Pure & Applied
Sciences
Sheridan et al. 2014; Litts 2015; Foth, Lankester, and
Hughes 2016; Gahagan 2016; Lille 2016; McCubbins 2016;
Morocz et al. 2016
Table 6. Models of delivery and relative percentage over the total number of resources discovered analysed
(n=21).
Target sectors 3.5.
The target sector(s) addressed by each individual study is presented in Table 7. The categorisation
used was drawn from the ILO (International Labour Organisation) Taxonomy6
list, which was reduced
and simplified. Some articles were attributed to more than one target sector.
6
“ILO Taxonomy”, Accessed January 26, 2018,
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/taxonomy/taxmain.showSet?p_lang=en&p_set=1

13. 9
Main target sector Sub-divided target sector References
Education & Training
(18) 66.7 %
Primary education
Tillman et al. 2014; Blackley et al. 2017;
Blikstein et al. 2017; Sheffield et al. 2017;
Blackley et al. 2018
Secondary education Marshall 2016, Blikstein et al. 2017
Bachelor’s or equivalent level
Forest et al. 2014; Lagoudas et al. 2016;
Morocz et al. 2016; Blackley et al. 2017;
Galaleldin et al. 2017; Ludwig, Nagel, and
Lewis 2017; Sinha et al. 2017; Tomko et al.
2017
Not elsewhere classified Miller 2016
(Not specified) Gahagan 2016
Population groups
(8) 29.6 %
Adults Sheridan et al. 2014
Children Sheridan et al. 2014; McCubbins 2016
Youth
Sheridan et al. 2014; Litts 2015; Sheffield
et al. 2017
(Not specified)
Foth, Lankester, and Hughes 2016;
Galaleldin et al. 2017
Work
(1) 3.7 %
Lille 2016
Table 7. Target sectors and relative percentage over the total number of instances.
Delivery institutions 3.6.
The delivery institutions promoting ‘Makerspaces’ are presented in Table 8 as identified within a
wide categorisation identified by the research team.
Approach to data collection 3.7.
Of the 21 impact assessment studies, 8 used a mixed-method approach, 8 were primarily qualitative
and 5 quantitative.
For these studies, data collection approaches involved written or online surveys (17 studies),
interviews (9), observations (8), experiment (4), case studies (3), focus groups/discussions groups
(2),
documentation review/archival (2) and email (1).
Among the data collection tools or scales employed there were Likert scales (9 studies),
questionnaires (7) and tests (1).
The statistical approaches used involved hypothesis testing such as t-tests (4 studies), ANOVA (3)
and chi-squared (1). Some studies specified the software tool or app used for analysis: Microsoft
Excel (1), SPSS (1), SPSS 16 (1), SPSS 24 (1) or others (3).

14. 10
Delivery institution References
Educational institution
(18) 85,7 %
School Blackley et al. 2018
University
Forest et al. 2014; Tillman et al. 2014;
Litts 2015; Lagoudas et al. 2016; Gahagan
2016; Marshall 2016; McCubbins 2016;
Miller 2016; Morocz et al. 2016; Blackley
et al. 2017; Blikstein et al. 2017;
Galaleldin et al. 2017; Miller, Christensen,
and Knezek 2017; Ludwig, Nagel, and
Lewis 2017; Sheffield et al. 2017; Sinha et
al. 2017; Tomko et al. 2017
Various
(1) 4,8 %
Foth, Lankester, and Hughes 2016
Others
(2) 9,5 %
Sheridan et al. 2014; Lille 2016
Table 8. Delivery institutions and relative percentage over the total number of instances.
Sampling technique and sample size 3.8.
Amongst the sampling techniques employed in the studies under consideration, there were
convenience sampling (17 studies), random (1) and systematic sampling (3).
Sample sizes ranged from 5 to 105 (147 mean; 52 median), 15 studies have a sample size under
100 participants and 2 do not specify the sample size.
Discussion 4.
Contexts of use 4.1.
Makerspaces, by any name, are fundamentally places to design, explore and create. Despite its
continued growth as a search term, ‘makerspace’ has only recently officially entered the dictionary
lexicon7
, in comparison to the related term ‘hackerspace’ has (Davee, Regalla, and Chang 2015).
The first use of the term ‘makerspace’ dates back to the publication of ‘Make magazine’ in 2005
and by the subsequent launch of Maker Faire, an event that demonstrated the popularity of making
and showcasing of new technologies (Wong and Partridge 2016).
Started as a grassroots movement, makerspace is particularly challenging to cohesively define
(Litts 2015) and, as a more generic and inclusive term, it has increasingly represented an extremely
wide variety of creative endeavours, tools, demographics, specializations and types of places where
making occurs (Davee, Regalla, and Chang 2015).
7
“Makerspace”, Oxford Dictionary, Accessed 28 December 2018,
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/makerspace; “Makerspace”, Cambridge Dictionary, Accessed 28 December
2018, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/makerspace

15. 11
Other terms often associated with making and spaces include ‘FabLabs’ and ‘hackerspaces’
(Davee, Regalla, and Chang 2015; Taylor, Hurley, and Connolly 2016), which both emphasize forms
of making that utilize digital technology. While ‘FabLabs’ are spaces that commonly share a core set
of digital fabrication and prototyping tools, ‘hackerspaces’ are largely associated with adult,
computationally-focused making (Davee, Regalla, and Chang 2015).
Different names also reveal a diverse range of focus and making forms (e.g. robotics, music,
media, arts, technology) and various approaches to making (e.g. play, design, the arts, science,
tinkering) (Davee, Regalla, and Chang 2015). All of them, however, provide opportunities for
informal, hands-on learning (Wong and Partridge 2016). The fundamental concept is that
makerspaces are informal sites emanated from people's desire to connect and work together
(Blackley et al. 2018) for creative production in art, science and engineering (Sheridan et al. 2014).
People of all ages can blend digital and physical technologies, for example, to explore and share
ideas, learn technical skills, design products and digital prototypes (Sheridan et al. 2014; Morocz et
al. 2016), etc.
These spaces are a key component of a larger ‘maker’ movement comprised of individual makers,
local and regional maker events and publications, and a host of digital do it yourself (DIY) resources
(Sheridan et al. 2014). The maker movement, in fact, was born as the do it yourself culture g access
to affordable digital design software and desktop fabrication tools and gave rise to a community of
practice that was significantly different from the older tinkerer and hobby communities (Morocz et
al. 2016). By providing communal facilities in an openly accessible space, makerspaces have been
collectively hailed as enabling a revolution in personal manufacturing (Taylor, Hurley, and Connolly
2016).
Users often come from different disciplines and are united by their common interest in making
and learn from each other informally through constructionism, where failing is considered both a
motivator and a learning mechanism (Morocz et al. 2016).
In addition, these spaces are known for fostering a culture of collaboration and openness and for
providing an environment for teaching, mentoring and advising; designing, building and fixing;
collaborating; participating (Morocz et al. 2016).
Therefore, a makerspace is more than just a place to make things (Wong and Partridge 2016),
despite the fact that the physical space can vary between very small, primarily catered to a
community of enthusiasts, to large spaces providing commercial services (Taylor, Hurley, and
Connolly 2016).
The makerspace phenomenon has morphed into three readily identifiable types characterised by
accessibility: dedicated, i.e. makerspaces concentrating equipment, tools and materials in a single
space, such as a center in a library or a workshop in a school used primarily as a makerspace;
distributed, namely spaces to make that are found in many places within an organization; and
mobile, which can take the form of vehicles that travel throughout a region (Davee, Regalla, and
Chang 2015; Blackeley et al. 2017).
Initially emerging from universities, makerspaces are now found in locations ranging from
industrial estates to high streets, schools, museums and libraries (Taylor, Hurley, and Connolly 2016).
The collaborative design and making activities they support have also generated interest in diverse
educational settings such as museums and libraries (Sheridan et al. 2014). With regard to the latter,
makerspaces are being established throughout the world in an increasing number of public libraries
and, in this way, are reframing the role of public libraries as information storehouses, by shifting the

16. 12
emphasis away from the loan of information materials towards the provision of a physical space,
tools, equipment and expertise for information sharing and knowledge creation (Gahagan 2016).
Community makerspaces have also gained popularity and more ground in universities and other
educational institutions as a novel approach to learn and work with peers, boost creativity and
innovation, promote design experiences at the undergraduate level and provide more opportunities
for experiential and hands-on learning (Forest et al. 2014; Wong and Partridge 2016; Galaleldin et al.
2017).
Makerspaces are also increasingly becoming a part of schools and creating more fluid boundaries
between formal and informal contexts for education (Sinha et al. 2017). They provide student-
centered learning environments that integrate technology and material play, encourage deep
engagement with STEM-integrated content, critical thinking, problem-solving, collaboration and
inspire creative ways to plan, research, build (Blackeley et al. 2017; Miller 2017; Sinha et al. 2017).
Furthermore, because the problem of declining numbers in student preferences in STEM, it is
thought that young people’s interest needs to be stimulated and maintained throughout schooling
so that they choose to continue with studies in the STEM fields at the university level (Blackeley et
al. 2017).
The maker movement is changing the way educators and educational researchers envision
teaching and learning: it contends that making, an active process of building, designing and
innovating with tools and materials to produce shareable artifacts is a naturally rich and authentic
learning trajectory (Litts 2015).
However, despite the interest and activity around designing and creating makerspaces and the
fact that learning through making intuitively “makes sense” to educators, parents, researchers and
kids, Sheridan and colleagues (2014) and Litts (2015) noted a lack of empirical evidence to
demonstrate the effectiveness, content and processes of learning in makerspaces. Until recently,
little has been known, for example, on how the maker movement is impacting education (Litts
2015), what the impact is of university makerspaces on students (Tomko et al. 2017), how standards
and learning are achieved through the use of a makerspace (Marshall 2016) or how the outcomes of
makerspace services are assessed in public libraries (Gahagan 2016).
The resources presented in this analysis offer a selection of current studies and impact
assessments involving makerspaces based on resources published from January 2013 to March
2018; however, in view of the potential importance of makerspaces consideration is now being given
to update the search to cover April to December 2018.
Starting from a school setting, Blackley and colleagues (2018) examined the learning experiences
of a sample of primary students in Indonesia who participated in an integrated STEM project to
create a ‘Wiggle bot’.
Two other papers by Blackley and colleagues (2017) and Sheffield and others (2017) both
described a type of makerspace approach that had the purpose of improving the confidence and
ability of primary education schoolgirls in Australia to capture their imagination and creativity. The
approach incorporated the utilisation of a makerspace situated in classrooms as a pedagogical tool
to integrate STEM education and develop teachers’ professional identity. Additional aims of the
project were to enable female school students, female pre-service teachers and female engineering
students to work together and to support the development of female STEM pre-service teachers,
given both their low levels in STEM-related careers, and their relative high proportion as primary
teachers.

17. 13
In the United States, Tillman and his team (2014) investigated the impact of digital fabrication
activities, defined as “the use of student-friendly software and hardware to translate digital designs
into physical objects”, integrated into contextualized mathematics education. In particular, the
researchers investigated how these activities could offer individualized, authentic learning
experiences in mathematics for African American male elementary and middle school students.
Regarding university settings, a paper by Morocz and his team (2016) focused on defining users in
terms of their participation level as well as identifying the relationship between levels of
participation and student’s engineering design self-efficacy in different American university
makerspaces participating in the study.
On the aspect of fostering creativity and innovation in engineering students, Tomko and
colleagues (2017) conducted a multi-university study in order to better understand the impact of
university makerspaces. To measure the impact of making environments, the researchers looked at
different metrics such as GPA, design self-efficacy, retention, idea generation ability and how these
metrics could be affected by different levels of involvement in university makerspaces.
Forest and colleagues (2014) reported a free-to-use makerspace (the ‘Invention Studio’) in the
United States, born by the desire to make design and prototyping more integral to the engineering
experience and, amongst other aspects, the study described the self-reported impact on users and
students; while Lagoudas and others (2016) assessed how the utilization of an American campus
makerspace facility had an effect on student development in electrical and mechanical engineering
education.
In an American makerspace, Ludwig, Nagel, and Lewis (2017) piloted a multidisciplinary
education (ME) course aimed at preparing undergraduate students from engineering, pre-nursing
and pre-professional health to develop capabilities needed to create tangible solutions to health-
related problems and challenges in the community.
Despite being multidisciplinary and open by nature, makerspaces still lack integration in the
curricula of engineering schools, according to Galaleldin and colleagues (2017). Their paper studied
best practices of makerspaces on campus and their impact on engineering education and on the
development of desired skills and competencies for engineering students. The study was based on
the investigation of five North American university makerspaces to identify best makerspace
practices in preparation for the establishment of a university makerspace in Canada, which becomes
the subject focus of the second part of their research.
The study by Miller (2016) explored how participation in a professional development experience
involving makerspace technology affected participants’ attitudes and confidence levels toward STEM
and technology integration over the course of a semester in the United States. Participants of the
study were either campus administrators or teachers. Related to the previous study (Miller 2016),
Miller, Christensen, and Knezek (2017) further investigated the relationship between makerspace
professional development and teacher confidence levels toward technology integration in the
United States.
Experiences related to library makerspaces were reported by Gahagan (2016), Lille (2016) and
Marshall (2016).
The study by Gahagan (2016) explored how two public library makerspaces, one in the United
States and one in New Zealand, assessed their outcomes and examined which methods had been
used; whereas Lille (2016) reported on an initiative for a library makerspace project in Estonia that
had the primary objective of improving opportunities for employment by enhancing the social and
entrepreneurial abilities of citizens. People who were not employed or wanted to change their job

18. 14
had the possibility to participate in workshops, exchange ideas and knowledge with others and learn
new skills. The project also aimed to enable the city library to have an additional impact on the
community through mentorship in an informal networking and peer-led environment.
In the thesis by Marshall (2016), the researcher deepened an understanding of how a selection of
American state learning standards (i.e. Iowa Core Standards) were addressed through the activities
that students engaged in during their use of a makerspace in a school library. Moreover, the author
observed whether, and how, learning occurred when students were engaged with the makerspace.
An example of a makerspace in a museum was presented by McCubbins (2016), whose study
aimed to better understand engagement and learning of children in a children’s museum
makerspace exhibit in the United States, also providing a reflection on methodologies and
instruments for their assessment.
With regard to mobile makerspaces, a paper presented by Foth, Lankster, and Hughes (2016)
reported on their experience of setting up, operating and evaluating a mobile community
makerspace, the Mixhaus, inside a disused shipping container in Australia. The makerspace was
framed in a larger programme of research focused on fostering digital participation through social
living labs in regional and rural Australian communities.
With some similarities, the study by Sinha and colleagues (2017) presented the conceptual design
and development of a deployable, mobile makerspace curriculum in the United States. The
curriculum focused on additive manufacturing (AM) education and aimed to identify effective means
of informal learning to broaden participation and increase engagement with science, technology,
engineering and maths (STEM) and art (STEAM) subjects.
In an investigation of the makerspace landscape, Sheridan and colleagues (2014) explored,
through a comparative case study in the United States, how makerspaces may function as learning
environments and described features of three makerspaces and how participants learn and develop
through complex design and making practices. Similarly, Litts (2015) investigated three American
youth makerspaces (i.e. museum, afterschool and mobile/library) as learning environments and the
communities within as learning communities.
The study by Blikstein and colleagues (2017) described an iterative development of early findings
on an assessment instrument intended to capture the learning that occurs in makerspaces and
FabLab settings in three countries (i.e. Australia, Mexico and the United States). The researchers
developed an assessment specifically designed for exploration and fabrication technologies (EFT), or
rather technologies centred on fabrication (activities oriented towards invention, construction and
design) and on exploration (activities oriented towards expression, tinkering, learning and
discovery).
There is wide and current literature on a variety of facets of makerspaces, reviewed briefly in the
section below.
First, a review by Hsu, Baldwin, and Chiring (2017) provided an overview of the current efforts in
maker education, supported by an analysis of some empirical studies about learning outcomes,
potential, common issues, challenges, resources and future research direction regarding maker
education.
A second review, authored by Davee, Regalla, and Chang (2015), covered a selection of the latest
discourse and thinking emerging from the growth of makerspaces and their developing roles in
education and communities, and summarized key points gleaned about youth makerspaces in
libraries, museums, schools and community organizations and the learning they enable.

19. 15
A third literature review is provided by the MakEY Project (Marsh et al. 2017) in a form of a very
complete document on makerspaces in formal and non-formal learning spaces. This research was
funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 program and explored the place of the rising ‘maker’
culture in the development of children’s digital literacy and creative design skills. The review
evidenced, among others, the urgent need for further research on approaches to assess learning in
makerspaces.
Last but not least, a White Paper by Vossoughi and Bevan (2014) drew on the research literature
to consider what is known about the impact of tinkering and making experiences on school-aged
children’s learning, in particular, interest in, engagement with and understanding of STEM; the
emerging design principles and pedagogies that characterize tinkering and making programs; and
the specific tensions and possibilities within this movement for equity-oriented teaching and
learning.
A critical view of the claims about ‘making’ as a productive form of science teaching and learning
and review on the current research literature was presented by Bevan (2017). In particular, this
author investigated how making promotes active participation in science and engineering practices
and leverages learners’ cultural resources.
A map of the landscape of research on making, with a specific focus on undergraduate work in
academic makerspaces, was reported by Rosenbaum and Hartmann (2017).
With regard to makerspaces in formal education contexts, Cohen and colleagues (2017),
developed an initial ‘makification’ framework for how teachers can ‘makify’ in-school teaching and
learning and make the connection between informal maker culture and purposeful instructional
design by implementing specific classroom activities. On this latter aspect, Miller (2017) introduced
an elementary and middle school project-based learning integrated curricular approach and
professional development programme; while Ortega (2017) examined early models and use of
makerspace implementation in K–5 schools in a district in the United States, as well as the supports
and barriers affecting teacher use of these spaces.
On engaging students by incorporating art in STEAM fields, Rees and colleagues (2015) explored
the role of makerspaces and flipped learning in a ‘Town-Gown’ effort in the United States.
University makerspaces were further examined in the studies by: Wong and Partridge (2016),
who provided an exploratory look at makerspaces within universities in Australia, collected their
experiences and added to the knowledge of makerspaces within the academic context more
generally; Weinmann (2014), which investigated how makerspaces function in the university
community and how to apply the result of this analysis to the specific case of a Technical University
in Germany; and Hartmann (2016), who described how research activity can be integrated into
academic makerspaces.
One disciple that appeared to be of particular interest in the literature of makerspaces is
engineering. Morocz and others (2015) sought to understand and use makerspace environments to
achieve elusive aims in engineering education and, at the same time, they investigated the potential
of maker spaces to positively influence females and minorities and thereby broaden participation in
engineering. An additional study by Wilczynski (2015) reviewed the makerspace facilities of seven
different universities and institutes of technology.
Among the resources on the subject of mobile makerspaces in the United States, there are: a
work in progress implementation of a mobile maker cart in a urban school to integrate engineering
into the curriculum (O’Connell 2016); a case study about the design, implementation and pilot of a

20. 16
pop-up mobile makerspace for students of a private university (Gierdowski and Reis 2015); and the
implementation project of a mobile makerspace programme in a public school setting (Craddock
2015).
Makerspaces in libraries were also a topic of interest and research in the work of Bar-El and
Zuckerman (2016), who presented a model and case study of a public kids’ drop-in makerspace in an
Israeli public library, designed for children and run by teens; Moorefield-Lang (2015) described the
implementation of mobile transportable makerspaces in libraries and educational settings in the
United States, Canada and the Netherlands; and Okpala (2016), presented a makerspace case study
for academic libraries in Nigeria.
Additionally, Slatter and Howard (2013) reported on the current state of makerspaces in
Australian public libraries, including benefits and challenges, and Burke (2014) provided a practical
guide for librarians.
A focus on the social aspect of makerspaces was presented by Taylor, Hurley, and Connolly
(2016), who attempted to look at the wider roles that makerspaces played in public life in the United
Kingdom and identified additional roles that these spaces play: as social spaces, and in supporting
well-being by serving the needs of the communities they are located in and reaching out to excluded
groups.
Within the extensive number of resources and guides on makerspaces, it is possible to find ideas
and solutions in the teacher ‘Hands-On Science and Technology’ program (Lawson and Atcheson
2015); in the practical guide for designing a classroom makerspace (Branigan-Pipe 2017); and in the
makerspace collaboration guide for school librarians, with tools for facilitating productive
collaborations between the school librarian, teachers, students and community members (Parks
2016).
There are also countless articles on a multiplicity of aspects related to makerspaces. Among
them, an interesting paper from the Deloitte Center for the Edge and Maker Media (2013) on the
impact of the Maker movement (i.e. on manufacturing, education, government policy, citizen
science and retail) and a guide for a discussion and collaboration among Makers and others involved
in government, business and academia; an article about the Philosophy of Educational Makerspaces
(EM) (Kurti, Kurti, and Fleming 2014); and a design case chronicling the processes, considerations,
decisions and design (e.g. location staffing, equipment, funding, budget, sustainability) of a
makerspace for teacher education in the United States (Dousay 2017).
A survey of Maker Education Demographics & Assessments was made in 2017 by Peppler and
colleagues for the MakerEd Open Portfolio Project, where makerspaces across the globe were
invited to report their demographics, assessment practices, human/material resources and guiding
philosophies, which followed two previous surveys in 2015 (Peppler et al. 2015a, 2015b).

21. 17
Impacts 4.2.
The impacts identified in the studies were organised using impact categories proposed by the
evaluation framework of the National Science Foundation8
.
4.2.1. Awareness, knowledge or understanding
A study by Galaleldin and colleagues (2017) reported that respondents participating in the activities
of the University of Ottawa (Canada) makerspace focused on engineering education, increased their
knowledge about niche topics.
In an intervention by Ludwig, Nagel, and Lewis (2017) in the United States, undergraduate
students from different scientific fields (i.e. engineering, biology/health and nursing) gained
knowledge on how to be creative and were also able to identify and learn skills critical to their future
work. The latter included learning the value of working in a multidisciplinary group and
communicating their role and knowledge to other members of their team (Ludwig, Nagel, and Lewis
2017).
Moreover, campus administrators and teachers participating in the study designed by Miller
(2016) reported a significant increase in self-reported competence in technology integration after
taking part in the makerspace professional development programme (i.e. Makers’ Guild).
Two studies (Lille 2016; Sinha et al. 2017) specifically recognized participants’ gains in the
understanding on how to use both 3D printing technologies and 3D scanning tools in an American
university makerspace (Sinha et al. 2017) and identified changes in users’ knowledge, especially in
learning to use new technologies, in a makerspace hosted in an Estonian public library (Lille 2016).
Young makers across the study by Litts (2015) demonstrated potentially measurable forms of
knowledge in making process, although the researcher recognised that the forms of learning
exhibited differed with regard to the making trajectory (process) and the artifact (product).
Tillmann and colleagues (2014) found that the intervention using digital fabrication for American
school students resulted in an overall gain in students’ mathematics test scores, especially for the
“Probability & Statistics” questions. Students’ improvement in their statistical thinking were
explained in relation to the fact that digital fabrication activities were integrated into maths
instruction.
4.2.2. Engagement or interest
Increasing interest in makerspaces was observed among American teachers and campus
administrators, who became interested in connecting makerspace activities to curriculum content as
a result of their participation in a professional development programme (Miller 2016).
Results from Blackley and colleagues (2018) indicated that their makerspace approach, which
consisted of a targeted learning activity of building a ‘Wiggle Bot’, was very effective in engaging
Indonesian primary students in the STEM space.
8
Friedman, AJ, Allen, S, Campbell, PB, Dierking, LD, Flagg, BN, Garibay, C, Korn, R, Silverstein, G and Ucko, DA. “Framework
for evaluating impacts of informal science education projects. Report from a National Science Foundation Workshop”
(2008): 114. http://www.informalscience.org/sites/default/files/Eval_Framework.pdf

22. 18
Analysis of self-reported survey ratings in the study by Sinha and colleagues (2017) also showed
that participants were able to successfully engage with the mobile makerspace through increased
familiarity within the space.
4.2.3. Attitude
Positive changes in attitude were observed: in the majority of the medical and biomedical
engineering students of an American university makerspace, who specifically reported a positive
impact on their outlook on engineering (Forest et al. 2014); in the interviewees of the workshop in
an Estonian makerspace, which changed participants’ attitude, decreased their fear and initial
doubts about trying new things and increased their self-confidence (Lille 2016); and in African
American students, who had increased positive attitudes towards STEM as a result of digital
fabrication activities integrated into mathematics education (Tillman et al. 2014).
Additionally, in the study by Miller (2016), all the educators participating in the makerspace
professional development programme reported positive perceptions and improved attitudes
towards STEM, especially mathematics, and STEM careers. Moreover, they experienced an increase
in positive attitudes towards instructional technology and technology integration.
Increase in confidence and self-confidence were observed in the studies by Lagoudas and
colleagues (2016); Miller (2016); Galaleldin and colleagues (2017); Ludwig, Nagel, and Lewis (2017);
and Miller, Christensen, and Knezek (2017).
More than half of the electrical and mechanical engineer students involved in the study by
Lagoudas and others (2016) reported self-confidence and motivation for the design tasks as a result
of the utilisation of the makerspace facility; while students from different scientific disciplines
(Ludwig, Nagel, and Lewis 2017) reported to have acquired insight into their own profession and a
gain in confidence in their professional knowledge. In the area of engineering, most of the
respondents of the research by Galaleldin and colleagues (2017) in Canada also stated that the
makerspace enabled them to be more confident in their engineering knowledge, in translating
engineering concepts to non-engineers, in their communication and in skills of teamwork, design,
resource management and in solving complex engineering problems.
Participants in the study designed by Miller (2016) reported an increase in their confidence levels
toward integrating the World Wide Web, emerging technologies for student learning, teacher
professional development and new information technologies into pedagogical practices during
professional development activities within the makerspace. This was in line with the study by Miller,
Christensen, and Knezek (2017), who also reported educators’ increased confidence levels in
integrating new information technologies into pedagogical practice and an increase of confidence in
their technology proficiency levels in the areas of email, emerging technologies for student learning
and teacher professional development over the course of the makerspace program.
4.2.4. Behaviour
Changes in behaviour were noticed in a makerspace study in Estonia (Lille 2016), where the majority
of the respondents expressed their willingness to participate in future workshops. Similarly, the
Australian schoolgirls initiative described by Sheffield and colleagues (2017) reported their
willingness to do more makerspace activities.

23. 19
On a related aspect, the results of the studies by Morocz and others (2016) and Tomko and
colleagues (2017) both revealed that students with higher participation in the makerspace were
more motivated and less anxious to perform engineering design and related tasks.
4.2.5. Skills
Young makers in the study presented by Litts (2015) in the United States reported learning new skills
and content spontaneously; whereas one-third of the respondents of the research by Galaleldin and
colleagues (2017) in Canada stated that the makerspace helped them in improving their
investigatory skills.
In their self-reported responses, the majority of the engineering students engaged in the study by
Forest and others (2014) reported that the makerspace had a positive impact on their design,
manufacturing and teamwork skills.
An improvement of students’ problem-solving abilities through group communications during the
digital fabrication was reported by Tillman and his team (2014).
4.2.6. Others
Multifaceted impacts were identified in the analysed articles, which included enjoyment, personal
and professional development, and socialisation.
At different degrees, all the Indonesian students participating to the making of a ‘Wiggle Bot’
enjoyed the activity, recognised the application of science in its construction and learned through
hands-on experimentation and collaboration (Blackley et al. 2018). Moreover, the participation in
the makerspace activity allowed these students to experience a different way of science learning,
encouraged them to develop the initiative of asking questions and seeking clarification and to try to
solve the problems that arose as a natural consequence of hands-on learning by using their
understanding and experiences (Blackley et al. 2018).
Primary pre-service teachers involved in the STEM education initiative described by Blackley and
colleagues (2017) in Australia enjoyed participating, despite the challenges they faced, and reported
that they found the project valuable in term of increasing their teaching experience, learning on the
job, being involved in research, developing new skills, and collaborating with their peers and the
staff.
Students of the multidisciplinary education course in an American makerspace valued the growth
that came from being challenged in the course and, although it was uncomfortable for them, they
recognized that the makerspace and interprofessional aspects allowed for more robust problem
solving (Ludwig, Nagel, and Lewis 2017). Furthermore, they stated that they enjoyed the course, that
they would be able to apply what they learnt to future work and, additionally, they linked their class
activities to other non-academic experiences.
Engineering students enrolled in design courses and interacting in the makerspace (Lagoudas et
al. 2016) reported a positive impact on their professional development and personal growth. More
than half of the respondents said that the makerspace helped them to finalize their design projects
by demonstrating the limitations and restrictions of manufacturing methods, offering accessibility to
equipment, and tools and guidance on how to realize their projects. Moreover, they felt enabled to
work on entrepreneurial ideas.

24. 20
Forest and colleagues (2014) found that the great majority of the engineering students
interacting in the makerspace reported positive impact on their employment after graduation, on
their social lives, in addition to their grade point average (GPA).
Though the outcomes of the makerspace project in Estonia (Lille 2016) were mainly intangible
because it was complicated to evaluate the direct impact on unemployment, a large number of
respondents participating in the workshop found it very interesting. They reported that it was also
an occasion to meet new people with same interests and build a good social environment,
particularly important for unemployed persons, as they could socialize and feel that they were doing
something to advance their employment opportunities.
In another intervention in the United States (Miller 2017), makerspaces fostered a sense of
community among participants, where teachers seemed to be more excited and inclined to try new
technologies because campus administrators participated with them in the professional
development programme.
From other studies (Sheridan et al. 2014; Tillman et al. 2014; Marshall 2016) it emerged that
makerspaces helped individuals to identify problems, build models, learn and apply skills, revise
ideas and share new knowledge with others (Sheridan et al. 2014); created positive feedback in
participants when asked about their experiences in digital fabrication activities (Tillman et al. 2014);
and provided a unique learning space in which students were willingly able to learn without specific
guided instruction, and enabled them to think, design, create, collaborate, experiment, build and use
technology (Marshall 2016).
Strengths 4.3.
Makerspaces can give an opportunity for students to experience engagement with hands-on STEM
content (Ortega 2017) and, additionally, provide a learning environment useful to improve teacher
confidence levels toward integrating technology into the classroom (Miller, Christensen, and Knezek
2017).
A makerspace approach to integrated STEM education can be an authentic and robust
pedagogical practice providing there are strong and explicit connections between the curricula of
mathematics, science and technology and the resultant products made during the makerspace
experience (Sheffield et al. 2017). With the observed application of STEM knowledge and skills, this
approach can therefore be effective in the acquisition, development and demonstration of 21st-
century skills such as problem-solving, critical and creative thinking, collaboration and
communication (Sheffield et al. 2017; Blackley et al. 2018). Positive early experiences also potentially
provide the foundation for students to pursue STEM courses and careers (Ortega 2017).
Tillmann and colleagues (2014) suggested that, by assisting teachers in interactive activities that
support mathematics learning through digital fabrication, there might be a positive impact that
could contribute towards closing the achievement gap for underrepresented populations. Moreover,
an amelioration of the opportunity gap for people of colour and women in STEM courses and careers
could potentially be achieved through early exposure to STEM and positive makerspace experiences
(Ortega 2017).
Fostering the makerspace environment might also be one solution to cultivate creativity and
innovation in universities (Morocz et al. 2015). A makerspace can provide an interdisciplinary center
that promotes collaboration and hands-on engineering by empowering the users with the tools to

25. 21
design, build, prototype, test their creations and collaborate outside of the classroom (Morocz et al.
2015; 2016). Academic institutions and introductory engineering design courses could play a key role
in this aspect by stimulating students to participate in university makerspaces, for example, as a
complementary part of the engineering curriculum. Makerspaces can become a supplemental part
of traditional engineering education by offering an innovative way of learning and leading to the
development and improvement of student design spaces thereby becoming something different
from the customary machine shop (Morocz et al. 2015). In other words, makerspaces provide a living
laboratory to answer some of the most compelling questions in engineering education (Forest et al.
2014) and fostering conversations with other engineers and makers (Galaleldin et al. 2017).
Libraries also play a very important role in making an impact on local communities and it is likely
that makerspaces or similar training spaces will become increasingly part of the library services in
the near future (Lille 2016).
On social and community aspects, makerspaces are public resources dedicated to creativity,
learning and openness, and this comes at a time when many communities do not have community
spaces and where civic life is often seen as being in decline (Taylor, Hurley, and Connolly 2016).
Makerspaces can play a wide range of roles in civic life and fall into four broad themes: acting as
social spaces; supporting wellbeing; serving the needs of the communities in which they are located;
and providing outreach centers for excluded groups (Taylor, Hurley, and Connolly 2016).
The Australian makerspace described by Foth, Lankster, and Hughes (2016) stressed the fact that
their makerspace was “an object crossing and dissolving boundaries along four different
dimensions”: an organisational, a social, a disciplinary and a spatial mix. In particular, the social
mixing went beyond the mere temporary collection of people in the same space considering that it
involved different personas (i.e. professionals and amateurs), into a cross-generational exchange.
Weaknesses 4.4.
The literature highlighted the critical role of teachers in influencing students’ perceptions towards
STEM and suggested that professional development programmes often limit teachers’ scientific
knowledge and pedagogical experience, with the consequence of producing teachers who have
limited confidence regarding STEM skill sets (Miller 2017). A teacher training gap in using
makerspaces can therefore result in missed opportunities for grade level-connected learning (Ortega
2017).
Educators reported facing challenges in providing innovative STEM practice through a classroom
makerspace due to standardized testing, lack of teacher preparation, skill sets, expertise regarding
how to use technology, pedagogical knowledge and limited access to technology and resources
(Miller 2017; Miller, Christensen, and Knezek 2017).
In the intervention by Tillmann and colleagues (2014), the authors pointed out that teachers’ lack
of familiarity or comfort with teaching science might have been one possible reason why student
content scores did not change considerably.
Improvements in teacher professional development programmes might, therefore, increase the
overall student STEM experience in school programmes, leading to a highly confident and skilled
STEM school education workforce, while encouraging more students to consider entering STEM
career pathways (Miller 2016). Vice versa, professional development through makerspace

26. 22
environments might increase educators’ confidence levels towards integrating technology, especially
for teachers serving low-income students (Miller 2017).
In the experience described by Blackley and colleagues (2018), students understood that the
process of making an operational ‘bot’ was not easy since it not only required their application of
scientific knowledge, but also scientific methods and socio-emotional skills developed through the
learning process such as collaboration, perseverance and resilience.
Blikstein and colleagues (2017) furthermore noticed a marked difference between students’
confidence and their performance in EFT, attributed to the different EFT technologies currently
available. In fact, different levels of familiarity and specialization with specific technological tools
became a factor because of the wide range of design projects and their differing approaches to
prototyping (Blikstein et al. 2017).
Anxiety might also be a significant barrier for students to enter and start participating in
university makerspaces (Morocz et al. 2016; Tomko et al. 2017) finding approaches to reduce
student anxiety surrounding design activities might also lead to greater participation in makerspaces.
In particular, initiatives that slowly introducing students to the space could reduce their anxiety and
help them to feel more comfortable approaching the space (Tomko et al. 2017).
On a related aspect, Taylor, Hurley, and Connolly (2016) reported that access to the benefits of
makerspace facilities might be unevenly spread and that, although makerspaces are open to all,
many of the people making use of these facilities were early adopters with technical or creative
backgrounds and a large proportion were affluent males.
Costs and feasibility 4.5.
Improving STEM education in developed and developing countries remains a challenge. STEM
innovations are considered to be crucial to the economic future of all countries but funding, time
and promotion for improving STEM education to ensure a robust pipeline of engagement is required
(Blackley et al. 2018).
Suggestions for improved methodologies and for future studies 4.6.
As reported by Litts (2015), makerspaces are proliferating and it is imperative for researchers and
practitioners to build a better understanding of these spaces as learning environments and of the
making that happens within them. The learning taking place in makerspace settings is often
influenced by factors other than those that traditional formal assessment tools measure (McCubbins
2016), therefore there is a need to develop appropriate tools of design, assessment and analysis
(Litts 2015) and to overcome many challenges that still exist in finding ways to measure the impact
of informal learning environments (McCubbins 2016).
The findings of the study by Gahagan (2016) on makerspaces in public libraries offered
suggestions regarding methodologies. The researcher reported that while efforts were made to
assess the outcomes of makerspaces, methods and techniques were primarily informal.
Furthermore, the same author added that current traditional formal reporting relied upon
quantitative measurements, such as counting visitor or participant numbers, which failed to capture
the effects of the service on users. Nevertheless, there is potential for qualitative data to be
collected more formally to be used to corroborate quantitative data and structure assessments

27. 23
(Gahagan 2016). For instance, by using a combination of methods to bring data together to
demonstrate the outcomes, such as interview data and observational data matched with attendance
or visitor statistics (Gahagan 2016).
Similarly, as underlined by Tomko and colleagues (2017), understanding the complexity of a
makerspace warrants a mixed-method approach in order to capture, for instance, the vibrancy of
the space and the impact on participating students.
Improvements in the formalised approach to outcomes assessment to bring greater validity and
reliability to the techniques being used, include: clearly articulated objectives or intended outcomes,
appropriate techniques and instruments, consistent approaches, scheduled frequency of the
assessment and reporting (Gahagan 2016). The same author further suggested the regular review of
objectives to ensure they are current and to adopt an evaluation approach that is cyclical, frequent
and in line with any existing performance measurement reporting timeframes.
In his dissertation, Litts (2015) suggested a learning-centered assessment according to learners’
individual goals by using design stance, i.e. “makers’ perspectives toward their making”, as an
assessment tool. However, this tool requires a more flexible perspective towards assessment than
the traditionally fixed and standardized perspective dominating the education system (Litts 2015).
Blikstein and colleagues (2017) added another point of view, saying that the ethos of personal
creativity and learner-centeredness in digital fabrication facilities creates a dilemma for assessment
as the interventions are open-ended and creative. According to this team of researchers, traditional
assessments of science and technology do not capture the particular type of learning in which
students are engaged in fabrication settings, nor do they reflect that the learning in such settings is
grounded in developing competence with digital fabrication tools.
While the variations in learning amongst students present a challenging scenario for an
assessment instrument, Blikstein and colleagues (2017) further suggested that such differences
constitute an exciting development for educators because they provide opportunities for peer
teaching and models of leadership where all involved have knowledge to share. The researchers also
stated that, in these settings, the nature of learning is not located in a single individual but across
individuals as they share knowledge and solve problems. Thus, according to the authors, distributed
expertise, rather than being an inconvenience to assessment could be seen as a new standard by
which learning when students acquire overlapping but different knowledge is evaluated. These peer
learning interactions can challenge researchers to look not only at what students can accomplish on
their own but at what they can achieve amongst themselves where they become resources for each
other in accomplishing their creative work. As much as the distributed nature of expertise disrupts
the conventional schooling notion of each student learning the same thing at the same time,
Blikstein and colleagues (2017) recommended that learning through makerspace is a crucial and
urgent issue for researchers to deal with.
As already pointed out, assessments play a key role in helping educators to align fabrication
activities and opportunities with explicit learning goals (Blikstein et al. 2017), but also it is crucial for
organisers and various stakeholders to communicate their results (McCubbins 2016; Taylor, Hurley,
and Connolly 2016). In the case of a museum, for instance, evaluation and assessment is of critical
importance given that museums often rely on public and government funding and therefore must
report to various stakeholders on the effectiveness of programmes and the impact they are having
on the community (McCubbins 2016).
As observed in the course of the study that Taylor, Hurley, and Connolly (2016) carried out in the
United Kingdom, the researchers also observed the difficulty that makerspace organisers had in

28. 24
identifying and highlighting concrete examples of positive outcomes for makerspace users. This
included not only intangible social benefits but also the more widely discussed economic benefits. In
their study, they reported that organisers were enthusiastic makers, not administrators, whose
primary focus was on making the resource available. However, being able to communicate the
generated outcomes was highlighted as crucial in securing the future of a makerspace, especially
against a backdrop of funding cuts (Taylor, Hurley, and Connolly 2016).
Another aspect to consider is to determine how the information gathered during assessment will
be shared and presented, for example as a written report, a newsletter, a presentation, an
infographic or a programme logic model (Gahagan 2016).
Future work might also focus on the barriers that prevent individuals who might otherwise be
interested in utilising the spaces from doing so and on the non-use of the makerspace (Taylor,
Hurley, and Connolly 2016). Among different approaches, ethnographic studies could help to
investigate these latter aspects and help understanding, for instance, the barriers to access in
addition to how students overcome and perceive these barriers (Tomko et al. 2017).
Other important aspects to consider are providing training to staff in public libraries on methods
of outcome assessments (or considering hiring an external company to do the assessment) (Gahagan
2016) and implementing training programs for facilitators in museums in order to improve their
ability to run effective exhibits with high levels of breakthrough (McCubbins 2016). On this last facet,
McCubbins (2016) observed that the engagement in the children’s museum makerspace in the
United States was influenced by the type of dialogue used by parents and facilitators and by the
space itself (i.e. negative effect on engagement if containing many distractions). A positive dialogue,
with words of encouragement and questions, prompted further thought and discussion, and often
led to higher levels of engagement; on the other hand, negative dialogue often led to
disengagement and a loss of interest (McCubbins 2016).
Facilitators could influence the engagement based on whether they used scientific language, had
the content and pedagogical background to run the activity and if they themselves demonstrated
sufficient engagement in the activities they were running (McCubbins 2016). Therefore, since
makerspaces have the potential to provide high levels of breakthrough for participants, they should
rely on appropriate training for facilitators, who are often volunteers or part-time staff who may or
may not have a background in education and pedagogical strategies (McCubbins 2016).
Understanding the definition of a makerspace and how it relates to curriculum standards at the
national, state and school levels will help teacher librarians to create a makerspace as part of their
schools’ STEM initiatives (Marshall 2016).
Marshall (2016) suggested that, for anyone researching the creation of a makerspace the
suggestion would be to visit as many school and public library makerspaces as possible. If
implementing a makerspace, it would also be important to plan its location, what will be included in
the space, what rules will work best for the space and who will manage the space while it is in use
(Marshall 2016).
Findings in the study by Ortega (2017) also suggested a need for a well-articulated plan prior to
makerspace implementation that includes professional development opportunities for teachers as
well as specific curricular and human capital support.
Educators are in the midst of a transition from a book study model of science instruction to a
more dynamic applied science model. Due to their hands-on nature, makerspaces are perfectly
positioned to support this instructional metamorphosis and the successful implementation and

29. 25
support of school makerspaces by instructional leaders can help create the conditions for more
connected and applied STEM instruction leading to a globally competitive STEM-ready workforce
(Ortega 2017).
Conclusions and overview 5.
Makerspaces are spaces equipped with various tools and technologies that allow people to explore
and innovate, thereby creating an intersection of constructionism and creativity (Ortega 2017).
Making happens in community settings (Litts 2015) and includes a variety of disciplines that draws in
a heterogeneous mix, encompassing youth, adults, males, females, diverse cultural backgrounds and
levels of expertise (Hsu, Balwin, and Ching 2017).
Giving the multifaceted characteristics and evolving dynamics around it, ‘makerspace’ does not
have a clear definition but it is undeniable that this space is contributing to forms of connected
learning that complement formal institutionalised education provided by schools and universities
(Foth, Lankster, and Hughes 2016). Transformative STEM learning spaces have grown rapidly in
universities, schools, libraries and museums with the aim to encourage deep engagement with
STEM-integrated content, critical thinking, problem-solving and collaboration (Miller 2017; Ortega
2017). Makerspaces in STEM position student learning in contexts that require the drawing together
of skills and knowledge from the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics to
create, construct and critique a product or artefact (Blackeley et al. 2017) and in addition they can
encourage educators to try new emerging technologies (Miller, Christensen, and Knezek 2017).
Makerspaces reveal a huge potential to benefit individuals but also entire communities. They can
act as a community hub, where people come to work together, learn from each other or simply
socialise, imparting value in a much broader variety of ways than just the economic potential and
hobbyist communities (Taylor, Hurley, and Connolly 2016).
Despite emerging efforts, there is still a paucity of empirical research evaluating makerspaces and
making (Hsu, Balwin, and Ching 2017), and makerspaces and learning (Litts 2015; Marshall 2016).
Moreover, learning through making demands new forms of assessments, since the current tools
simply do not capture the complex interdisciplinary learning taking place in makerspaces (Litts
2015). There is, however, a growing interest to understand the outcomes of programmes and
services, to improve current practices, overcome current and future challenges and potentially pave
the way for the inventors and engineers of tomorrow (Gahagan 2016; Ortega 2017).

30. 26
APPENDIX A: Example of data input mask

31. 27
Extracted from:
Nicklas, Theresa, Sandra Lopez, Yan Liu, Rabab Saab, and Robert Reiher. “Motivational Theater to
Increase Consumption of Vegetable Dishes by Preschool Children.” International Journal of
Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 14 (February 7, 2017): 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-
017-0468-0.

32. 28
APPENDIX B: Bibliography
Impact assessments
Blackley, Susan, Yuli Rahmawati, Ella Fitriani, Rachel Sheffield, and Rekha Koul. “Using a
‘Makerspace’ Approach to Engage Indonesian Primary Students with STEM.” Issues in
Educational Research 28, no. 1 (2018): 18–42.
Blackley, Susan, Rachel Sheffield, Nicoleta Maynard, Rekha Koul, and Rebecca Walker. “Makerspace
and Reflective Practice: Advancing Pre-Service Teachers in STEM Education.” Australian Journal
of Teacher Education 42, no. 3 (March 2017): 22–37.
Blikstein, Paulo, Zaza Kabayadondo, Andrew Martin, and Deborah Fields. “An Assessment
Instrument of Technological Literacies in Makerspaces and FabLabs: Assessment of
Technological Literacies in Makerspaces and FabLabs.” Journal of Engineering Education 106,
no. 1 (January 2017): 149–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20156.
Forest, Craig R., Roxanne A. Moore, Jariwala Amit S., Barbara Burks Fasse, Julie Linsey, Wendy
Newstetter, Peter Ngo, and Christopher Quintero. “The Invention Studio: A University Maker
Space and Culture.” Advances in Engineering Education 4, no. 2 (2014): 32.
http://advances.asee.org/wp-content/uploads/vol04/issue02/papers/AEE-14-1-Forest.pdf.
Foth, Marcus, Ally Lankester, and Hilary E. Hughes. “Digital Fabrication and Local Participation: A
Community Maker Space Dissolving Boundaries.” In Workshop Proceedings of Digital
Participation: Engaging Diverse and Marginalised Communities, edited by Hilary Davis and Jane
Farmer, 9. Launceston, Tas, 2016. https://digitalparticipationhci.wordpress.com/.
Gahagan, Pia Margaret. “Evaluating Makerspaces: Exploring Methods Used to Assess the Outcomes
of Public Library Makerspaces.” Master’s thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 2016.
https://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/5193/report.pdf?sequence=
1.
Galaleldin, Mohamed, Francois Bouchard, Hanan Anis, and Claude Lague. “The Impact of
Makerspaces on Engineering Education.” Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education
Association (CEEA), January 28, 2017, 6. https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.6481.
Lagoudas, Magdalini, Jeffrey Froyd, James Wilson, Peter Hamilton, Rodney Boehm, and Prasad
Enjeti. “Assessing Impact of Maker Space on Student Learning.” In 2016 ASEE Annual
Conference & Exposition Proceedings, 13. New Orleans, Louisiana: ASEE Conferences, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.18260/p.26298.
Lille, Maria. “Evaluating the Success of Markerspace in a Public Library: The Case of Narva City
Library MakerLab in Estonia.” New Library World 117, no. 9/10 (2016): 587–95.
https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-04-2016-0030.
Litts, Breanne K. “Making Learning: Makerspaces as Learning Environments.” PhD thesis, University
of Wisconsin--Madison, 2015. https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/9910215086302121.
Ludwig, Patrice M., Jacquelyn K. Nagel, and Erica J. Lewis. “Student Learning Outcomes from a Pilot
Medical Innovations Course with Nursing, Engineering, and Biology Undergraduate Students.”
International Journal of STEM Education 4, no. 1 (December 2017): 14.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0095-y.

33. 29
Marshall, Tracie. “Makerspaces and the Iowa Core: Connections in a High School Library.” Master’s
thesis, University of Northern Iowa, 2016. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/grp/98.
McCubbins, Sara. “Using A Visitor Based Framework To Observe Engagement In A Children’s
Museum Makerspace.” PhD thesis, Illinois State University, 2016.
https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/etd/526.
Miller, Jennifer, Rhonda Christensen, and Gerald Knezek. “Effect of a Makerspace Training Series on
Elementary and Middle School Educator Confidence Levels Toward Integrating Technology,”
1015–20. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2017.
https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/177380/.
Miller, Jennifer Renea. “Effect of Makerspace Professional Development Activities on Elementary
and Middle School Educator Perceptions of Integrating Technologies with STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering, Mathematics).” PhD thesis, University of North Texas, 2016.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED575854.
Morocz, R. J., B. Levy, C. Forest, R. L. Nagel, W. C. Newstetter, K. G. Talley, and J. S. Linsey. “Relating
Student Participation in University Maker Spaces to Their Engineering Design Self-Efficacy.” In
American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference Proceedings, 13. New Orleans,
USA, 2016. https://www.asee.org/public/conferences/64/papers/16125/view.
Sheffield, Rachel, Rekha Koul, Susan Blackley, and Nicoleta Maynard. “Makerspace in STEM for Girls:
A Physical Space to Develop Twenty-First-Century Skills.” Educational Media International 54,
no. 2 (2017): 148–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2017.1362812.
Sheridan, Kimberly, Erica Rosenfeld Halverson, Breanne Litts, Lisa Brahms, Lynette Jacobs-Priebe,
and Trevor Owens. “Learning in the Making: A Comparative Case Study of Three Makerspaces.”
Harvard Educational Review 84, no. 4 (December 2014): 505–31.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u.
Sinha, Swapnil, Kelsey Rieger, Aaron D. Knochel, and Nicholas A. Meisel. “Design and Preliminary
Evaluation of a Deployable Mobile Makerspace for Informal Additive Manufacturing Education,”
15. Austin, Texas, 2017.
http://sffsymposium.engr.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/2017/Manuscripts/DesignandPrelimin
aryEvaluationofaDeployable.pdf.
Tillman, Daniel A., Song A. An, Jonathan D. Cohen, William Kjellstrom, and Rachel L. Boren.
“Exploring Wind Power: Improving Mathematical Thinking through Digital Fabrication.” Journal
of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 23, no. 4 (October 2014): 401–21.
Tomko, Megan, Robert L. Nagel, Melissa Wood Aleman, Wendy C. Newstetter, and Julie S. Linsey.
“Toward Understanding the Design Self-Efficacy Impact of Makerspaces and Access
Limitations,” 14. Columbus. Ohio, 2017. https://peer.asee.org/27761.
Descriptive resources
Bar-El, David, and Oren Zuckerman. “Maketec: A Makerspace as a Third Place for Children.” In
Proceedings of the TEI ’16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and
Embodied Interaction - TEI ’16, 380–85. Eindhoven, Netherlands: ACM Press, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2839462.2856556.

34. 30
Bevan, Bronwyn. “The Promise and the Promises of Making in Science Education.” Studies in Science
Education 53, no. 1 (January 2, 2017): 75–103.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1275380.
Branigan-Pipe, Zoe. Making a Makerspace: The Tools, The Spaces and the Theories A Holistic
Approach Design Project. Ontario, Canada, 2017.
https://dr.library.brocku.ca/bitstream/handle/10464/12972/Makerspace%20Resource.pdf?seq
uence=2&isAllowed=y.
Burke, John. Makerspaces: A Practical Guide for Librarians. Lanham: Rl, 2014.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Makerspaces-Practical-Guide-Librarians-Guides/dp/1442229675.
Cohen, Jonathan, W. Monty Jones, Shaunna Smith, and Brendan Calandra. “Makification: Towards a
Framework for Leveraging the Maker Movement in Formal Education.” Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia 26, no. 3 (July 2017): 217–29.
Craddock, IdaMae Louise. “Makers on the Move: A Mobile Makerspace at a Comprehensive Public
High School.” Library Hi Tech 33, no. 4 (November 16, 2015): 497–504.
https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-05-2015-0056.
Davee, Steve, Lisa Regalla, and Stephanie Chang. “Makerspaces. Highlights of Selected Literature.”
Maker Ed, May 2015. https://makered.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Makerspace-Lit-
Review-5B.pdf.
Deloitte Center for the Edge and Maker Media. “Impact of the Maker Movement.” From the Maker
Impact Summit December 2013, 2013. https://makermedia.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/10/impact-of-the-maker-movement.pdf.
Dousay, Tonia A. “An Evolving Makerspace for Teacher Education.” International Journal of Designs
for Learning 8, no. 1 (June 24, 2017). https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v8i1.22672.
Gierdowski, Dana, and Daniel Reis. “The MobileMaker: An Experiment with a Mobile Makerspace.”
Library Hi Tech 33, no. 4 (November 16, 2015): 480–96. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-06-2015-
0067.
Hartmann, Björn. “A Research Agenda for Academic Makerspaces,” 4. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
ISAM, 2016. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~bjoern/papers/hartmann-makerspaces-
isam2016.pdf.
Hsu, Yu-Chang, Sally Baldwin, and Yu-Hui Ching. “Learning through Making and Maker Education.”
TechTrends 61, no. 6 (November 2017): 589–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0172-6.
Kurti, Steven R., Debby L. Kurti, and Laura Fleming. “The Philosophy of Educational Makerspaces.”
Teacher Librarian 41, no. 5 (January 2014): 8–11. http://dtl-region-
four.ncdpi.wikispaces.net/file/view/The+Philosophy+of+Educational+Makerspaces.pdf.
Lawson, Jennifer, and Susan Atcheson. “Hands-On Science and Technology.” Ontario, Canada:
Portage and Main Press, 2015. https://www.portageandmainpress.com/product/hands-on-
science-and-technology-grade-2/.
Marsh, Jackie, Kristiina Kumpulainen, Bobby Nisha, Anka Velicu, Alicia Blum-Ross, David Hyatt,
Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir, et al. “Makerspaces in the Early Years. A Literature Review.” University

35. 31
of Sheffield: MakEY, 2017. http://makeyproject.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2017/02/Makey_Literature_Review.pdf.
Miller, Jennifer. “Mapping Elementary and Middle School Makerspace Environments to Curriculum
Content through STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering the Arts, and Mathematics)
Challenge Cards,” 1357–64. Austin, Texas: Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education (AACE), 2017. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/177419/.
Moorefield-Lang, Heather Michele. “When Makerspaces Go Mobile: Case Studies of Transportable
Maker Locations.” Library Hi Tech 33, no. 4 (November 16, 2015): 462–71.
https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-06-2015-0061.
Morocz, Ricardo, Bryan D. Levy, Craig R. Forest, Robert L. Nagel, Wendy C. Newstetter, Kimberly G.
Talley, and Julie S. Linsey. “University Maker Spaces: Discovery, Optimization and Measurement
of Impacts,” 10. Seattle, WA: Georgia Institute of Technology, 2015.
http://hdl.handle.net/1853/53812.
O’Connell, Brian. “Implementation of a Mobile Makerspace in a K-8 School (Work in Progress).” In
2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, 10. New Orleans, Louisiana: ASEE
Conferences, 2016. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.25577.
Okpala, Helen Nneka. “Making a Makerspace Case for Academic Libraries in Nigeria.” New Library
World 117, no. 9/10 (October 10, 2016): 568–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-05-2016-0038.
Ortega, Veronica Inez. “Increasing STEM Exposure in K–5 Schools Through MakerSpace Use: A Multi-
Site Early Success Case Study.” PhD thesis, UCLA, 2017.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5j3859cf.
Parks, Jennifer B. “Learning in Middle School Library Makerspaces: A Makerspace Collaboration
Guide for School Librarians.” Master’s thesis, University of North Carolina, 2016.
https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/indexablecontent/uuid:a2deb87a-6b3a-4361-b225-8b8b658721c8.
Peppler, Kylie, Anna Keune, Fangli Xia, and Stephanie Chang. “Surveying Maker Education
Demographics & Assessments.” Research Brief. San Francisco, USA: MakerED, 2017.
https://makered.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/MakerEdOPP_RB17_Survey-of-
Assessments-in-Makerspaces.pdf.
Peppler, Kylie, Adam Maltese, Anna Keune, Stephanie Chang, and Lisa Regella. “The Maker Ed Open
Portfolio Project Survey of Makerspaces, Part I.” Survey. San Francisco, USA: MakerED, 2015a.
https://makered.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/02/OPP_ResearchBrief6_SurveyofMakerspacesPart1_final.pdf.
Peppler, Kylie, Adam Maltese, Anna Keune, Stephanie Chang, and Lisa Regella. “The Maker Ed Open
Portfolio Project Survey of Makerspaces, Part II.” Survey. San Francisco, USA: MakerED, 2015b.
https://makered.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/02/OPP_ResearchBrief7_SurveyofMakerspacesPart2_final.pdf.
Rees, Paula, Christine Olson, Charles Schweik, and Steven Brewer. “Work in Progress: Exploring the
Role of Makerspaces and Flipped Learning in a Town-Gown Effort to Engage K12 Students in
STEAM.” In 2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings, 15. Seattle, Washington:
ASEE Conferences, 2015. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.25087.

36. 32
Rosenbaum, Leah R., and Björn Hartmann. “Where Be Dragons? Charting the Known (and Not So
Known) Areas of Research on Academic Makerspaces,” 6. Cleveland, OH: ISAM, 2017.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B4ZIatyugWjJNXlxVW9iR0ZFVjQ.
Slatter, Diane, and Zaana Howard. “A Place to Make, Hack, and Learn: Makerspaces in Australian
Public Libraries.” The Australian Library Journal 62, no. 4 (November 2013): 272–84.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2013.853335.
Taylor, N., U. K. Hurley, and P. Connolly. “Making Community: The Wider Role of Makerspaces in
Public Life.” In Proceedings of CHI 2016 (Human-Computer Interaction Conference), 1415–25.
SIGCHI (Special Interest Group on Human Computer Interaction), 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858073.
Vossoughi, Shirin, and Bronwyn Bevan. “Making and Tinkering: A Review of the Literature.” National
Research Council Committee on out of School Time STEM, 2014, 55.
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_089888
.pdf.
Weinmann, Julian. “Makerspaces in the University Community.” Master’s thesis, Technical University
of Munich, 2014.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/design_education/wikiupload/0/0a/Weinmann_Masters_Thes
is.pdf.
Wilczynski, Vincent. “Academic Maker Spaces and Engineering Design.” In 2015 ASEE Annual
Conference and Exposition Proceedings, 26.138.1-26.138.19. Seattle, Washington: ASEE
Conferences, 2015. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.23477.
Wong, Anne, and Helen Partridge. “Making as Learning: Makerspaces in Universities.” Australian
Academic & Research Libraries 47, no. 3 (July 2, 2016): 143–59.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2016.1228163.