Supporting inclusivity in STEM makerspaces through critical theory: A systematic review

IF 3.9 2区 工程技术 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Engineering Education Pub Date : 2023-07-18 DOI:10.1002/jee.20546
Madison E. Andrews, Audrey Boklage
{"title":"Supporting inclusivity in STEM makerspaces through critical theory: A systematic review","authors":"Madison E. Andrews,&nbsp;Audrey Boklage","doi":"10.1002/jee.20546","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Makerspaces have increased in popularity recently and hold many promises for STEM education. However, they may also fall prey to hegemonic, marginalizing norms and ultimately narrow the definition of making and exclude who counts as makers. Explicitly focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion when examining makerspaces is of utmost urgency and importance for STEM education researchers; one way to foreground equity is through theoretical frameworks that critically examine the structure, environment, participation, and pedagogy within STEM makerspaces.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Thus, we investigate the following: (1) what are the theoretical frameworks applied and (2) how, if at all, is equity addressed in research exploring STEM makerspaces? In synthesizing prior work, we aim to provide recommendations for using theoretical frameworks in supporting inclusivity in STEM makerspaces.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Scope/Method</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a systematic review of articles that examine a STEM makerspace, apply a theoretical framework, and consider diversity, equity, and/or inclusion. We identified <i>n</i> = 34 relevant studies and coded each for basic characteristics.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We highlight 10 exemplars that use critical theoretical frameworks as a way to foreground equity in the research design. The authors of these exemplar studies are reflective throughout their research processes and position themselves as learning in tandem with their participants. Further, they take active steps to transfer agency and power to their participants, and in doing so, lift forms of knowing not widely valued in STEM spaces.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>We conclude with recommendations for educators, makerspace staff, and researchers relevant to expanding dominant conceptions of what counts as making and thereby, supporting inclusivity in STEM makerspaces.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20546","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Engineering Education","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jee.20546","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Makerspaces have increased in popularity recently and hold many promises for STEM education. However, they may also fall prey to hegemonic, marginalizing norms and ultimately narrow the definition of making and exclude who counts as makers. Explicitly focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion when examining makerspaces is of utmost urgency and importance for STEM education researchers; one way to foreground equity is through theoretical frameworks that critically examine the structure, environment, participation, and pedagogy within STEM makerspaces.

Purpose

Thus, we investigate the following: (1) what are the theoretical frameworks applied and (2) how, if at all, is equity addressed in research exploring STEM makerspaces? In synthesizing prior work, we aim to provide recommendations for using theoretical frameworks in supporting inclusivity in STEM makerspaces.

Scope/Method

We conducted a systematic review of articles that examine a STEM makerspace, apply a theoretical framework, and consider diversity, equity, and/or inclusion. We identified n = 34 relevant studies and coded each for basic characteristics.

Results

We highlight 10 exemplars that use critical theoretical frameworks as a way to foreground equity in the research design. The authors of these exemplar studies are reflective throughout their research processes and position themselves as learning in tandem with their participants. Further, they take active steps to transfer agency and power to their participants, and in doing so, lift forms of knowing not widely valued in STEM spaces.

Conclusions

We conclude with recommendations for educators, makerspace staff, and researchers relevant to expanding dominant conceptions of what counts as making and thereby, supporting inclusivity in STEM makerspaces.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过批判理论支持 STEM 创客空间的包容性:系统回顾
背景 最近,创客空间越来越受欢迎,为 STEM 教育带来了许多希望。然而,它们也可能成为霸权、边缘化规范的牺牲品,并最终缩小了制作的定义,排除了谁可以算作创客。对于 STEM 教育研究人员来说,在研究创客空间时明确关注多样性、公平性和包容性是最紧迫和最重要的;强调公平性的一种方法是通过理论框架,批判性地研究 STEM 创客空间的结构、环境、参与和教学法。 因此,我们对以下内容进行了研究:(1) 应用了哪些理论框架;(2) 在探索 STEM 创客空间的研究中,公平问题是如何解决的?通过综合先前的工作,我们旨在为使用理论框架支持 STEM 创客空间的包容性提供建议。 范围/方法 我们对研究 STEM 创客空间、应用理论框架并考虑多样性、公平性和/或包容性的文章进行了系统性回顾。我们确定了 n = 34 项相关研究,并对每项研究的基本特征进行了编码。 结果 我们重点介绍了 10 篇在研究设计中使用关键理论框架来强调公平的典范文章。这些典范研究的作者在整个研究过程中都进行了反思,并将自己定位为与参与者一起学习。此外,他们还采取积极措施,将代理权和权力转移给参与者,从而提升了在科学、技术、工程和数学领域未得到广泛重视的知识形式。 结论 最后,我们向教育工作者、创客空间工作人员和研究人员提出了一些建议,这些建议涉及扩大关于什么算作制作的主流概念,从而支持 STEM 创客空间的包容性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Engineering Education
Journal of Engineering Education 工程技术-工程:综合
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
47
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) serves to cultivate, disseminate, and archive scholarly research in engineering education.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The Undergraduate Engineering Mental Health Help-Seeking Instrument (UE-MH-HSI): Development and validity evidence How can I help move my manuscript smoothly through the review process? Reasons and root causes: Conventional characterizations of doctoral engineering attrition obscure underlying structural issues Special issue on systematic reviews and meta-analyses in engineering education: Highlights and future research directions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1