- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Making teachers: Expanding physics teacher education

Jill A. Marshall*

Bernard G. David

Pablo Durán Oliva

  • *Contact author: jmarshall@utexas.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020150 – Published 4 December, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/dy4c-6lxr

Abstract

Grounded in constructionist learning theory, Maker education facilitates knowledge building through the construction of personally meaningful physical artifacts. Maker education has shown potential to promote learning, engagement, identity development, and interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), with most evidence coming from informal and after-school spaces or elective classes. A review of research on Making in formal STEM education identified positive effects, most often in knowledge of electric circuits. Research on Maker teacher preparation, however, is limited. This 5-year study, situated in a university physics class for preservice and in-service STEM teachers and future teacher educators, explored the effects of adding a Maker component to the course. There was no statistically significant difference between the Maker and non-Maker groups on a common conceptual learning assessment. Qualitative analysis, however, provided evidence that the Maker project enabled activation of conceptual knowledge, enhanced student engagement, legitimated students’ funds of knowledge, and revealed affordances of Maker learning to future teachers.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (56)

  1. D. Dougherty, The Maker movement, Innovations 7, 11 (2012), http://direct.mit.edu/itgg/article-pdf/7/3/11/704919/inov_a_00135.pdf.
  2. M. Honey and D. E. Kanter, Introduction, Design, Make, Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators (Routledge, New York, NY, 2013).
  3. S. Vossoughi, P. Hooper, and M. Escudé, Making through the lens of culture and power: Toward transformative visions for educational equity, Harv. Educ. Rev. 86, 206 (2016).
  4. E. R. Halverson and K. M. Sheridan, The Maker movement in education, Harv. Educ. Rev. 84, 495 (2014).
  5. B. Bevan, J. Gutwill, M. Petrich, and K. Wilkinson, Learning through STEM-rich tinkering: Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice, Sci. Educ. 99, 98 (2015).
  6. A. C. Barton, E. Tan, and D. Greenberg, The Makerspace movement: Sites of possibilities for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM, Teach. Coll. Record 119, 1 (2017).
  7. P. Blikstein, Digital fabrication and “Making” in education: The democratization of invention, in FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors, edited by J. Walter-Herrmann and C. Büching (Transcript Publishers, Bielefeld, 2013).
  8. B. Buchholz, K. Shively, K. Peppler, and K. Wohlwend, Hands on, hands off: Gendered access in crafting and electronics practices, Mind Cult. Act. 21, 278 (2014).
  9. B. Bevan, The promise and promises of Making in science education, Stud. Sci. Educ. 53, 75 (2017).
  10. A. C. Barton and E. Tan, Designing for rightful presence in STEM: The role of making present practices, J. Learn. Sci. 28, 616 (2019).
  11. A. Maltese, A. Simpson, and A. Anderson, Failing to learn: The impact of failures during making activities, Thinking Skills Creativity 30, 116 (2018).
  12. E. Buehler, N. Comrie, M. Hofmann, S. McDonald, and A. Hurst, Investigating the implications of 3D printing in special education, ACM Trans. Accessible Comput. 8, 1 (2016).
  13. W. B. Martin, J. Yu, X. Wei, R. Vidiksis, K. K. Patten, and A. Riccio, Promoting science, technology, and engineering self-efficacy and knowledge for all with an autism inclusion maker program, Front. Educ. 5, 75 (2020).
  14. E. Dawson, Social justice and out-of-school science learning: Exploring equity in science television, science clubs and maker spaces, Sci. Educ. 101, 539 (2017).
  15. P. Blikstein, J. A. Valente, and E. M. de Moura, Maker education: Where is the curriculum?, e-Curriculum 18, 523 (2020).
  16. J. A. Marshall and J. R. Harron, Making learners: A framework for evaluating making in STEM education, Interdiscip. J. Probl.-Based Learn. 12, 3 (2018).
  17. S. Nemorin, A critical perspective on “Making” in school: The implementation of 3D printing in high-school settings, Educ. Psychol. (2015), https://www.academia.edu/25311371/A_critical_perspective_on_Making_in_school_The_implementation_of_3D_printing_in_high_school_settings.
  18. L. Buechley, Making good: Equality and diversity in Maker education, in Proceedings of the UTeach Conference, Austin, TX (2015), p. 17, https://institute.uteach.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/2015-UTeach-Conference-Program.pdf.
  19. R. Hadad, K. Thomas, M. Kachovska, and Y. Yue, Practicing formative assessment for computational thinking in Making environments, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 29, 162 (2020).
  20. M. Schad and M. W. Jones, The Maker movement and education: A systematic review of the literature, J. Res. Tech. Educ. 52, 65 (2020).
  21. P. Blikstein, Z. Kabayadondo, A. Martin, and D. Fields, An assessment instrument of technological literacies in Makerspaces and FabLabs, J. Eng. Educ. 106, 149 (2017).
  22. M. Shin, J. J. Lee, and F. P. Nelson, Funds of knowledge in making: Reenvisioning maker education in teacher preparation, J. Res. Tech. Educ. 54, 635 (2022).
  23. S. Kapon, M. Schvartzer, and T. Peer, Forms of participation in an engineering maker-based inquiry in physics, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 58, 249 (2021).
  24. D. Dougherty, The Maker mindset, in Design, Make, Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators, edited by M. Honey and D. Kanter (Routledge, New York, NY, 2013).
  25. S. Nemorin, The frustrations of digital fabrication: An auto/ethnographic exploration of “3D Making” in school, Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 27, 517 (2017).
  26. J. Cohen, Maker principles and technologies in teacher education: A national survey, J. Tech. Teach. Educ. 25, 5 (2017), https://www.learntechlib.org/p/172304/.
  27. J. D. Cohen, W. M. Jones, and S. Smith, Preservice and early career teachers’ preconceptions and misconceptions about making in education, J. Digital Learn. Teach. Educ. 34, 31 (2018).
  28. L. C. McDermott, Physics by Inquiry (John Wiley & Sons, New York 1996), Vol. II.
  29. D. Harlow and A. Hansen, School Maker Faires, Sci. Child. 55, 30 (2018).
  30. R. S. Sheffield, J. J. Kurisunkal, and R. Koul, Learning to teach and teaching to learn STEM through a Makerspace approach, edited by R. Koul et al. (Science Education in India, Singapore, 2019), 10.1007/978-981-13-9593-2_10.
  31. L. C. Moll, C. Amanti, D. Neff, and N. Gonzalez, Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms, Theory Pract. 31, 132 (1992).
  32. S. Kjällander, A. Åkerfeldt, L. Mannila, and P. Parnes, Makerspaces across settings: Didactic design for programming in formal and informal teacher education in the Nordic countries, J. Digital Learn. Teacher Educ. 34, 18 (2017).
  33. B. Bevan, J.J Ryoo, A. Vanderwerff, K. Wilkinson, and M. Petrich, “I see students differently”: Following the lead of Maker educators in defining what counts as learning, Front. Educ. 5, 1 (2020).
  34. M. Petrich, K. Wilkinson, and B. Bevan, It looks like fun, but are they learning, in Design, Make, Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators, edited by M. Honey and D. Kanter (Routledge, New York, NY 2013), pp. 50–70.
  35. L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I: Investigation of student understanding, Am. J. Phys. 60, 994 (1992).
  36. P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part II: Design of instructional strategies, Am. J. Phys. 60, 994 (1992).
  37. B. Thacker, E. Kim, K. Trefz, and S. M. Lea, Comparing problem solving performance of physics students in inquiry-based and traditional introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 62, 627 (1994).
  38. Y . B. Kafai, D. A. Fields, and K. A. Searle, Electronic textiles as disruptive designs: Supporting and challenging maker activities in schools, Harv. Educ. Rev. 84, 532 (2014).
  39. C. Tofel-Grehl, D. A. Fields, K. Searle, C. Maahs-Fladung, D. Feldon, G. Gu, and V. Sun, Electrifying engagement in middle school science class: Improving student interest through e-textiles, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 26, 406 (2017).
  40. B. K. Litts, Y. B. Kafai, D. A. Lui, and J. T. Walker, and S. A. Widman, Stitching codeable circuits: High school students’ learning about circuitry and coding with electronic textiles, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 26, 494 (2017).
  41. G. Nugent, B. Barker, H. Lester, N. Grandgenett, and D. Valentine, Wearable textiles to support student STEM learning and attitudes, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 28, 470 (2019).
  42. E. F. Redish, Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics, Am. J. Phys. 62, 796 (1994).
  43. S. Papert, A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future, in Children in the Information Age: Opportunities for Creativity, Innovation, and New Activities: Selected Papers from the Second International Conference, Sofia, Bulgaria, edited by B. Sendov and I. Stanchev (Pergamon, Oxford, 1987), pp. 3–18, 10.1016/B978-0-08-036464-3.50006-5.
  44. J. S. Brown, A. Collins, and P. Duguid, Situated cognition and the culture of learning, Educ. Res. 18, 32 (1989); M. Scardamalia and C. Bereiter, Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy and technology, in Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, edited by K. Sawyer (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2006), pp. 97–118, 10.1017/CBO9781139519526.025.
  45. K. Sheridan, E. R. Halverson, B. Litts, L. Brahms, L. Jacobs-Priebe, and T. Owens, Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three Makerspaces, Harv. Educ. Rev. 84, 505 (2014).
  46. D. D. Hutto, M. D. Kirchhoff, and D. Abrahamson, The enactive roots of STEM: Rethinking educational design in mathematics, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 27, 371 (2015); C. Groth, L. Søyland, L. Kolesnik, I. H. Høibo, and B. Olafsson, Educational makerspaces, embodied learning for world-making, in 18th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) (Routledge, New York, 2025), pp. 375–379, https://2025.isls.org/proceedings/.
  47. E. Hutchins, The distributed cognition perspective on human interaction, in Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Human Interaction, edited by Stephen C. Levinson and Nicholas J. Enfield (2006), pp. 375–398, https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003135517-19/distributed-cognition-perspective-human-interaction-edwin-hutchins.
  48. https://makered.org/.
  49. L. Buechley and B. Hill, LilyPad in the wild: How hardware’s long tail is supporting new engineering and design communities, in Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, Aarhus, Denmark (2010), pp. 199–207, 10.1145/1858171.1858206.
  50. L. Martin, The promise of the Maker movement for education, J. Pre-Coll. Eng. Educ. Res. 5, 30 (2015).
  51. V. R. Lee and D. A. Fields, A rubric for describing competences in the areas of circuitry, computation, and crafting after a course using e-textiles, Int. J. Inform. Learn. Technol. 34, 372 (2017).
  52. K. Peppler, STEAM-powering computing education: Using e-textiles to integrate the arts and STEM, Computer 46, 38 (2013).
  53. J. Corbin and S. Strauss, Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria, Qual. Sociol. 13, 3 (1990).
  54. R. Taibu, Terms vs. concepts: The case of weight, Phys. Teach. 55, 34 (2017).
  55. L. Lindberg, D. A. Fields, and Y. B. Kafai, STEAM Maker education: Conceal/reveal of personal, artistic and computational dimensions in high school student projects, Front. Educ. 5, 1 (2020).
  56. C. Bosqué, What are you printing? Ambivalent emancipation by 3D printing, Rapid Prototyping J. 21, 572 (2015).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020150– Published 4 December, 2025
  • Received 31 March 2025
  • Accepted 24 October 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation