k 12 education quality by state

Map Options

Public School Rankings by State 2024

Finding the best public school is a priority for many families. A good education is important to these families, who may even choose where they purchase or rent housing to ensure their children are in the best public school systems.

There are about 51 million public school students in the United States . While far from perfect, public schools play a vital role in their respective communities. Public schools improve their communities and the welfare of children. Public schools welcome all children, no matter their income level, disability, or previous academic performance. Many schools provide school meals , which helps children from food-insecure families get nutritious food every day. The better the public school, the more likely students will achieve higher educational attainment .

While there is no comprehensive way to measure what public schools are the best in the nation, a few surveys look at data, including high school graduation rates and college readiness, to determine which states have the best schools.

States with the Best Public Schools

WalletHub ranked each state's public schools for "Quality" and "Safety" using 33 relevant metrics. Metrics included high school graduation rate among low-income students, math and reading scores, median SAT and ACT scores, pupil-teach ratio, the share of armed students, the number of school shootings between 2000 and June 2020, bullying incidence rate, and more. Based on these metrics, Massachusetts , Connecticut , and New Jersey have the best public schools in the United States.

1. Massachusetts

Massachusetts has the best public school system in the U.S. 48.8% of Massachusetts's eligible schools ranked in the top 25% of high school rankings, a total of 167 schools. Massachusetts has the highest math and reading test scores in the U.S. and the second-highest median ACT score of 25.1. Massachusetts also has one of the lowest bullying incidence rates in the country and is considered one of the best states for teachers . Massachusetts is also the most educated state in the country.

2. Connecticut

Connecticut ranks second in the nation for public schools, ranking second for quality and 19th for safety. Connecticut students have the highest median ACT score of 25.5 and have the third-highest reading test scores. Connecticut spends about $18,958 per student, one of the highest per-pupil costs in the country. Connecticut is also one of the best states for teachers due to having small class sizes and some of the best-paid teachers in the U.S. with an average annual salary of $73,113.

3. New Jersey

New Jersey has the third-best public schools in the United States. New Jersey has the second-lowest dropout rate among states and the third-lowest pupil-to-teacher ratio. Additionally, students have the third-highest math test scores and the second-highest reading test scores in the nation. New Jersey ranks second for the overall quality of schools and 11th for safety. The state spends about $21,866 per student on average. New Jersey is considered the second-best state for teachers, with the sixth-highest average salary of $69,917 per year.

4. Virginia

Virginia has the fourth-best public schools overall in the United States, ranking fourth for quality and third for safety. Virginia public schools were found to have the fourth-highest math test scores in the country. Virginia schools also have the fourth-lowest bullying incidence rate and have "no significant shortcomings" when assessed for safety from violence, bullying, harassment, and substance use.

5. New Hampshire

New Hampshire has the fifth-best public schools in the United States, ranking fourth for quality and twelfth for safety. New Hampshire schools have the fourth-highest reading test scores among states and the second-highest median ACT score of 25.1. Additionally, New Hampshire has the fifth-lowest pupil-to-teacher ratio of about 12-to-1.

6. Maryland

The sixth-best state for public schools is Maryland . Maryland's average ACT score is 22.3, and its average SAT score is 1058. The pupil-to-teacher in Maryland is 15:1, below the national average.

7. Delaware

Ranking seventh for public schools is Delaware , which ranks sixteenth for quality and third for safety. Delaware has the second-lowest bullying incident rate, only second to D.C. The average ACT score is 24.1, higher than the U.S. average, but the pupil-to-teacher ratio is 22:1.

8. Nebraska

At the eighth spot for states with the best public schools is Nebraska . Ranking twelfth for quality and eighth for safety, Nebraska is tied for the second-best SAT scores.

9. Wisconsin

Wisconsin has the ninth-best public schools in the U.S. The state ranks sixth for quality, tying with Minnesota for the highest median SAT score. Wisconsin's pupil-to-teacher ratio is 15:1, lower than the U.S. average.

10. Vermont

Vermont has the fifth-best public schools in the nation. Vermont ranks eighth for quality, having the lowest pupil-to-teacher ratio in the country, allowing teachers to give each student extra attention. The average teacher ratio in the U.S. is 16-to-1, while Vermont's is 10.5-to-1. Vermont also ranks fourth for safety, tied for first with Massachusetts and Oklahoma for having the lowest percentage of threatened/injured high school students.

On the opposite end, the five states with the worst public schools are New Mexico , Alaska , Louisiana , Arizona , and West Virginia .

• All data are expressed as rankings from 1 (best) to 50 (worst).
• The School Quality subcategory evaluates states across 12 indicators, including % of teachers who meet all state licensing requirements, annual per-pupil spending, pupil-to-teacher ratio, schools that require health education.
• The Student Safety subcategory evaluates states across 15 indicators, including bullying rate, instances of crimes such as robbery or sexual assault, and the prevalence of illegal drug sales on school property.
• The Student Success subcategory evaluates states across 15 indicators, including SAT scores, ACDT scores, expulsion rates, dropout and graduation rates, and rates of students who go on to attend college.

Download Table Data

Enter your email below, and you'll receive this table's data in your inbox momentarily.

• 2023 State Education Rankings � Best to Worst - Scholaroo
• Mass. ranks 5th in the nation for education, 1st for student success - Boston.com

Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress and Reform

Current ALEC grade

Featured Publication:

Report card on american education: 22nd edition.

The status quo is not working. Whether by international comparisons, state and national proficiency measures, civic literacy rates, or career preparedness, American students are falling behind. The 22nd edition of the Report Card on American Education ranks states on their K-12 education and policy performance.

Recent Updates

Say no to Harvard — keep homeschool freedom for kids: J. Michael Smith

As families and schools deal with pandemic, Harvard Magazine launches war on homsechooling: Corey A. DeAngelis

The trillion dollar problem: Pandemic puts state pension plans at even greater risk: Martin Lueken

Keep up-to-date on the latest campaigns & news.

2023 State Education Rankings – Best to Worst

Scholaroo ventures to discover and evaluate public school rankings in the US, identifying the best and worst school systems across three factors – Student Success, Student Safety, and School Quality.

• Post date 23 January 2023

Education is a key indicator of the economic, social, and cultural success of any state. To analyze the public school systems across the United States, Scholaroo has identified various criteria such as student success, school quality, and student safety. In this State Education Ranking, we compare all fifty states to assess which school systems are the best and worst in 2023.

Student success can be measured through various academic metrics such as test scores and graduation rates. In our school ranking, School quality accounts for the level of resources available to school districts. Finally, student safety is an important factor in determining public school system rankings; this includes school security measures, bullying prevention programs, and other initiatives designed to ensure students feel safe at school.

The data set considers a depth of topics across 43 key indicators, ranging from metrics that measure how much a student is enabled to succeed, to metrics that measure the school’s security to determine state education rankings.

If you want to know which state has the best education system for 2023, you are invited to see this public education ranking, here we will show it to you.

Rankings of States with Best & Worst Public Schools

Category Breakdown

What are the best states for education?

The top 5 best states for education are New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, and Massachusetts. New Jersey offers the safest environment for its students and has one of the most successful educational systems in the entire country.

Where does Florida rank in education?

Florida’s education ranking is 42nd overall in the country, as it has one of the worst quality education systems, and its students are one of the least successful academically nationwide.

What does K-12 education mean?

K-12 education refers to the educational journey that encompasses kindergarten through 12th grade, covering the primary and secondary education years. New Jersey topped the list of states with the best K-12 public schools in the country. The state offers the safest environment for its students and has the lowest dropout rate compared with all other states. It also has the fourth-highest spending per student.

Methodology

In order to determine the best and worst school systems per state, Scholaroo compared the 50 states across three key dimensions:

• Student Success
• Student Safety
• School Quality

We evaluated those dimensions using 43 relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weight. Each metric was graded on a 100 point scale, with a score of 100 being the max.

Finally, we determined each state’s weighted average across all metrics to calculate its overall score and used the resulting scores to rank-order our sample.

Student Success (25 Points)

High School Graduation Rate: Double Weight (2.27 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of graduates High school graduates or higher.

High School Dropout Rate: Double Weight (2.27 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of high school dropouts among persons 16 to 24 years old (status dropout rate).

SAT Scores: Double Weight (2.27 points)

Note: This metric measures the SAT mean scores of High School Seniors.

ACT Scores: Double Weight (2.27 points)

Note: This metric measures the average ACT score (Composite score: English, Mathematics, Reading, Science scores) of Graduates.

College-Going Rates: Double Weight (2.27 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of High School graduates going directly to College.

Reading Test Scores: Double Weight (2.27 points)

Note: This metric measures the Average of Scale Scores between 4th and 8th Grade Reading scores.

Math Test Scores: Double Weight (2.27 points)

Note: This metric measures the Average of Scale Scores between 4th and 8th Grade Mathematics scores.

Science Test Scores: Double Weight (2.27 points)

Note: This metric measures the Average of Scale Scores between 4th and 8th Grade Science scores.

AP Exam Participation: Regular Weight (1.14 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of graduates who took an AP exam during High School.

AP Exam Scores: Regular Weight ((1.14 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of the Class of 2021 scoring a 3 or higher on an AP exam during High School.

Students in Gifted Programs: Regular Weight (1.14 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of public students enrolled in gifted/talented programs.

Class Suspension Rates: Regular Weight (1.14 points)

Note: This metric measures the number of days missed due to suspension (per School).

Expulsion Rate: Half Weight (0.57 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of student expulsions (per school).

Retention Rate: Half Weight (0.57 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of 8th Grade students retained (per school).

Student Participation in Sports: Regular Weight (1.14 points)

Note: This metric measures child participates in a sports team or did he or she take sports lessons after school or on weekends, age 6-17 years.

School Quality (35 Points)

Annual per-pupil spending: Regular Weight (3.50 points)

Note: This metric measures the annual per-pupil spending in Public Elementary-Secondary School System Finances.

School Rankings: Regular Weight (3.50 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of presence of Public High Schools in the Top 100

0 Best U.S Schools by U.S. News & World Report.

Pupil/ Teacher Ratio: Regular Weight (3.50 points)

Note: This metric measures the pupil/teacher ratios in public elementary and secondary schools.

Presence of Guidance Counselors: Regular Weight (3.50 points)

Note: This metric measures the number of guidance counselors per Public High School.

Presence of School Health Councils: Half Weight (1.75 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of Secondary Schools with one or more School Health Councils.

Full-Time Registered Nurse: Regular Weight (3.50 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of Secondary Schools that have a Full-Time Registered Nurse who provides Health Services to students.

Health Education Curriculum: Half Weight (1.75 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of Secondary Schools that required Health Education Instruction in grades 6–12.

Healthy Eating Curriculum: Half Weight (1.75 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of Secondary Schools in which Teachers taught the benefits of healthy eating.

Sexual Health Curriculum: Half Weight (1.75 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of Secondary Schools in which Teachers taught all 20 sexual health topics (including topics related to how HIV and STD’s are transmitted, contraception methods, sexual orientation, gender expression, creating and sustaining healthy relationships, sexual risk behaviors, etc) in a Required Course in Any of Grades 9, 10, 11, or 12.

Teachers meeting State Licensing Requirements: Regular Weight (3.50 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of teachers that meet all State Licensing/Certification Requirements.

Level of Experienced Teachers: Regular Weight (3.50 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of teachers with 3 or more years of experience.

Average Teachers’ Salary: Regular Weight (3.50 points)

Note: This metric measures the cost of living adjusted to the average teacher salary.

Student Safety (40 Points)

Bullying Rate: Regular Weight (3.33 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of High School students who were bullied on school property.

Exposure to Illegal Drugs: Regular Weight (3.33 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of High School students who were offered, sold, or given an illegal drug on school property.

Absence of Students due to Safety Concerns: Regular Weight (3.33 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of High School students who did not go to school because they felt unsafe at school or on their way to or from school.

Bullying and Sexual Harassment Prevention: Double Weight (6.67 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of Secondary Schools where all school staff received professional development on preventing, identifying, and responding to student bullying and sexual harassment.

Sexual Assault Rate: Half Weight (1.67 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of Sexual Assault.

Rape or Attempted Rape Rate: Half Weight (1.67 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of Rape or Attempted Rape.

Robbery with a Weapon Rate: Half Weight (1.67 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of robberies with a Weapon.

Robbery with a firearm or explosive Rate: Half Weight (1.67 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of robberies with a firearm or explosive.

Robbery without a weapon Rate: Half Weight (1.67 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of robberies without a weapon.

Physical attack or fight with a weapon Rate: Half Weight (1.67 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of physical attacks or fights with a weapon.

Physical attack or fight with a firearm or explosive device Rate: Regular Weight (3.33 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of physical attacks or fights with a firearm or explosive.

Physical attack without a weapon: Half Weight (1.67 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of physical attacks without a weapon.

Threats of physical attack with a weapon: Half Weight (1.67 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of threats of physical attacks with a weapon.

Threats of physical attack with a firearm or explosive device: Half Weight (1.67 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of threats of physical attacks with a firearm or explosive device.

Threats of physical attack without a weapon: Half Weight (1.67 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of threats of physical attacks without a weapon.

Possession of a firearm or explosive device: Regular Weight (3.33 points)

Note: This metric measures the percentage of possession of a firearm or explosive device.

Get started

Already have an account? Log in

RANKED: The strength of the public education system in every US state, from worst to best

• Massachusetts has the best public education system out of all US states, according to an annual ranking.
• The US News and World Report rankings looked at how well states are educating their students in preschool, K-12 and higher education.
• It examines performance in areas like preschool enrollment, math and reading scores, college readiness, graduation rates, tuition and fees, and debt at graduation.
• Visit INSIDER's homepage for more stories

Massachusetts was ranked as having the best public education system out of all US states, according to an annual ranking.

The US News and World Report rankings  looked at how well states are educating their students in preschool, K-12 and higher education after examining areas like preschool enrollment, math and reading scores, college readiness, graduation rates, tuition and fees, and debt at graduation.

While Massachusetts topped the list, Alabama and New Mexico ranked the lowest.

The rankings come as part of US News and World Report's "Best States" ranking for 2019,  which looks at the quality of health care, education, and infrastructure in every state, as well as their economies and quality of life.

Here are the states ranked in order of the quality of their public education systems:

50. Alabama

Alabama was ranked 49th for pre-k to 12th grade and 47th for higher education.

49. New Mexico

New Mexico was ranked 50th for pre-k to 12th grade and 29th for higher education.

48. Louisiana

Louisiana was ranked 46th for pre-k to 12th grade and 49th for higher education.

Alaska was ranked 47th for pre-k to 12th grade and 36th for higher education.

46. Mississippi

Mississippi was ranked 45th for pre-k to 12th grade and 33rd for higher education.

Nevada was ranked 48th for pre-k to 12th grade and 18th for higher education.

44. West Virginia

West Virginia was ranked 42nd for pre-k to 12th grade and 45th for higher education.

43. South Carolina

South Carolina was ranked 41st for pre-k to 12th grade and 46th for higher education.

42. Arkansas

Arkansas was ranked 40th for pre-k to 12th grade and 40th for higher education.

41. Rhode Island

Rhode Island was ranked 36th for pre-k to 12th grade and 48th for higher education.

40. Arizona

Arizona was ranked 44th for pre-k to 12th grade and 24th for higher education.

39. Oklahoma

Oklahoma was ranked 43rd for pre-k to 12th grade and 28th for higher education.

38. Kentucky

Kentucky was ranked 32nd for pre-k to 12th grade and 43rd for higher education.

37. Michigan

Michigan was ranked 29th for pre-k to 12th grade and 42nd for higher education.

Delaware was ranked 39th for pre-k to 12th grade and 22nd for higher education.

35. Tennessee

Tennessee was ranked 38th for pre-k to 12th grade and 23rd for higher education.

Texas was ranked 33rd for pre-k to 12th grade and 32nd for higher education.

Idaho was ranked 26th for pre-k to 12th grade and 35th for higher education.

32. Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania was ranked 10th for pre-k to 12th grade and 50th for higher education.

Ohio was ranked 18th for pre-k to 12th grade and 38th for higher education.

30. Georgia

Georgia was ranked 31st for pre-k to 12th grade and 25th for higher education.

Hawaii was ranked 30th for pre-k to 12th grade and 21st for higher education.

Maine was ranked sixth for pre-k to 17th grade and 34th for higher education.

27. Missouri

Missouri was ranked 21st for pre-k to 12th grade and 26th for higher education.

26. Montana

Montana was ranked 20th for pre-k to 12th grade and 19th for higher education.

25. North Carolina

North Carolina was ranked 28th for pre-k to 12th grade and 12th for higher education.

24. Indiana

Indiana was ranked 6th for pre-k to 12th grade and 39th for higher education.

23. Delaware

Delaware was ranked 24th for pre-k to 12th grade and 16th for higher education.

22. New York

New York was ranked 25th for pre-k to 12th grade and 15th for higher education.

21. California

California was ranked 37th for pre-k to 12th grade and 4th for higher education.

20. North Dakota

North Dakota was ranked 35th for pre-k to 12th grade and 5th for higher education.

19. Illinois

Illinois was ranked 7th for pre-k to 12th grade and 31st for higher education.

18. South Dakota

South Dakota was ranked 23rd for pre-k to 12th grade and 10th for higher education.

17. Minnesota

Minnesota was ranked 12th for pre-k to 12th grade and 20th for higher education.

16. Wyoming

Wyoming was ranked 34th for pre-k to 12th grade and 3rd for higher education.

Kansas was ranked 15th for pre-k to 12th grade and 13th for higher education.

14. Wisconsin

Wisconsin was ranked 16th for pre-k to 12th grade and 11th for higher education.

13. Maryland

Maryland was ranked 11th for pre-k to 12th grade and 17th for higher education.

12. Connecticut

Connecticut was ranked 5th for pre-k to 12th grade and 44th for higher education.

11. Colorado

Colorado was ranked 14th for pre-k to 12th grade and 9th for higher education.

Utah was ranked 22nd for pre-k to 12th grade and 6th for higher education.

Iowa was ranked 13th for pre-k to 12th grade and 8th for higher education.

Vermont was ranked 4th for pre-k to 12th grade and 41st for higher education.

7. Virginia

Virginia was ranked 8th for pre-k to 12th grade and 14th for higher education.

6. Nebraska

Nebraska was ranked 9th for pre-k to 12th grade and 7th for higher education.

5. New Hampshire

New Hampshire was ranked 3rd for pre-k to 12th grade and 37th for higher education.

4. Washington

Washington was ranked 19th for pre-k to 12th grade and 2nd for higher education.

Florida was ranked 27th for pre-k to 12th grade and 1st for higher education.

2. New Jersey

New Jersey was ranked 2nd for pre-k to 12th grade and 30th for higher education.

1. Massachusetts

Massachusetts was ranked 1st for pre-k to 12th grade and 29th for higher education.

87.5% of children in the state graduate from high school, well above the national average, while National Assessment of Educational Progress math test scores are 5% higher than the national average.

Follow INSIDER on Facebook .

• Main content

• Board of Regents
• Business Portal
• Contact NYSED

New York State Education Department

• Commissioner
• USNY Affiliates
• Organization Chart
• Building Tours
• Program Offices
• Rules & Regulations
• Office of Counsel
• Office of State Review
• Freedom of Information (FOIL)
• Governmental Relations
• Adult Education
• Bilingual Education & World Languages
• Career & Technical Education
• Cultural Education
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Early Learning
• Educator Quality
• Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
• Graduation Measures
• Higher Education
• High School Equivalency
• Indigenous Education
• My Brother's Keeper

Office of the Professions

• P-12 Education
• Special Education
• Vocational Rehabilitation
• Career and Technical Education
• Educational Design and Technology
• Standards and Instruction
• Office of State Assessment
• Computer-Based Testing
• Exam Schedules
• Grades 3-8 Tests
• Regents Exams
• New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA)
• English as a Second Language Tests
• Test Security
• Teaching Assistants
• Pupil Personnel Services Staff
• School Administrators
• Professionals
• Career Schools
• Fingerprinting
• Accountability
• Audit Services
• Budget Coordination
• Chief Financial Office
• Child Nutrition
• Facilities Planning
• Ed Management Services
• Pupil Transportation Services
• Religious and Independent School Support
• SEDREF Query
• Public Data
• Data Privacy and Security
• Information & Reporting

§3012-d as amended by the Laws of 2019

• Resources for Educator Evaluation Data Collection and Submission
• Educator Evaluation Results
• Educator Evaluation Statute, Regulations and Guidance for §3012-d, as amended
• Student Performance Category
• Teacher Observations and Principal School Visits Category
• 3012-d (plans approved before 2020)
• SED Monitoring Educator Evaluation Portal

Questions and Answers Relating to Evaluation Plans for the 2024-25 School Year

Get the Latest Updates!

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the New York State Education Department.

Popular Topics

• Charter Schools
• High School Equivalency Test
• Next Generation Learning Standards
• Professional Licenses & Certification
• Reports & Data
• School Climate
• School Report Cards
• Teacher Certification
• Vocational Services
• Find a school report card
• Find assessment results
• Find high school graduation rates
• Find information about grants
• Get information about learning standards
• Get information about my teacher certification
• Obtain vocational services
• Serve legal papers
• Verify a licensed professional
• File an appeal to the Commissioner

Quick Links

• About the New York State Education Department
• About the University of the State of New York (USNY)
• Business Portal for School Administrators
• Employment Opportunities
• FOIL (Freedom of Information Law)
• Incorporation for Education Corporations
• NYS Archives
• NYS Library
• NYSED Online Services
• Public Broadcasting

Media Center

• Newsletters
• Video Gallery
• X (Formerly Twitter)

New York State Education Building

89 Washington Avenue

Albany, NY 12234

NYSED General Information: (518) 474-3852

ACCES-VR: 1-800-222-JOBS (5627)

High School Equivalency: (518) 474-5906

New York State Archives: (518) 474-6926

New York State Library: (518) 474-5355

New York State Museum: (518) 474-5877

Office of Higher Education: (518) 486-3633

Office of the Professions: (518) 474-3817

P-12 Education: (518) 474-3862

EMAIL CONTACTS  

Adult Education & Vocational Services 

New York State Archives 

New York State Library 

New York State Museum 

Office of Higher Education 

Office of Education Policy (P-20)

© 2015 - 2024 New York State Education Department

Diversity & Access | Accessibility | Internet Privacy Policy | Disclaimer  |  Terms of Use  

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election results
• Google trends
• AP & Elections
• U.S. Open Tennis
• Paralympic Games
• College football
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

New Mexico looking for a new state Public Education Department secretary for K-12 schools

• Copy Link copied

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — New Mexico is looking for a new state Public Education Department secretary for K-12 schools. Again.

Arsenio Romero resigned Wednesday, effective immediately, after about a year and a half on the job.

Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said in a statement that she and her staff will begin interviewing candidates to replace Romero immediately.

Earlier this month, New Mexico State University officials announced that Romero is one of five finalists in its search for a new president, and a decision is expected by the end of September.

Michael Coleman, a spokesperson for the governor, told the Santa Fe New Mexican that Lujan Grisham gave Romero “a choice to either resign and continue pursuing the NMSU position or stay on the job and withdraw his candidacy at NMSU.”

Coleman added that “the Secretary of Public Education is critically important in New Mexico and the governor believes it’s imperative that the person serving in this role be fully committed to the job.”

The state’s Public Education Department has struggled to turn educational outcomes around as high percentages of students fail to be proficient in math and reading.

The department also has struggled to retain a Cabinet secretary throughout Lujan Grisham’s tenure. Romero was the fourth person to hold the job since 2019.

“Not only is this a continuation of failed leadership and high turnover from our governor’s executive staff, but also, I find it hypocritical that while the governor positions herself for higher office, those on her staff are given ultimatums if their ambitions do not fit the vision of the administration,” Republican state Sen. David Gallegos, of Eunice, said in a statement Thursday. “Again, our children are the ones who pay the price.”

Leaders of the state’s top teacher unions echoed those concerns, saying “the persistent churn” of leadership at the state agency results in instability that hampers achievement and that educators can’t be fully effective when state mandates and leadership are constantly shifting.

American Federation of Teachers New Mexico President Whitney Holland and National Education Association-New Mexico President Mary Parr-Sanchez said in a statement that legislators should research and refine efforts to return public education governance to an elected, statewide board of education.

Should cell phones be banned from all California schools?

New school year brings new education laws

How courts can help, not punish parents of habitually absent students

How earning a college degree put four California men on a path from prison to new lives | Documentary 

Patrick Acuña’s journey from prison to UC Irvine | Video

Family reunited after four years separated by Trump-era immigration policy

Getting Students Back to School

Calling the cops: Policing in California schools

Black teachers: How to recruit them and make them stay

Lessons in Higher Education: California and Beyond

Superintendents: Well paid and walking away

Keeping California public university options open

August 28, 2024

Getting students back to school: Addressing chronic absenteeism

July 25, 2024

Adult education: Overlooked and underfunded

Legislation

California passes bill to limit student cellphone use on K-12 campuses

Diana Lambert

August 29, 2024.

California state legislators passed a bill Wednesday requiring school districts to ban or restrict student smartphone use on campuses during school hours.

Assembly Bill 3216 , renamed the Phone-Free School Act, requires that every school district, charter school and county office of education develop a policy limiting the use of smartphones by July 1, 2026.

“Extended studies have demonstrated that the use of smartphones in classrooms can detract from students’ academic performances while contributing to higher rates of academic dishonesty and cyberbullying,” said the authors' statement. “In consideration of California’s deficiency when it comes to academic performance, as compared to other states, it is imperative for the legislature to take action to resolve this issue.” 

The Phone-Free School Act was authored by a bipartisan group of Assembly members that includes Republican Josh Hoover and Democrats Josh Lowenthal and Al Muratsuchi.

The legislation comes as states, school districts and individual schools are increasingly banning cellphones , smartwatches and other personal devices on campuses in an effort to curb classroom distractions, bullying and addiction to the devices. 

At least five other states, including Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, South Carolina and Ohio have similar laws in place.

It is likely that Gov. Gavin Newsom will sign the legislation into law. He sent a letter to school district leaders earlier this month urging them to take immediate action to restrict cellphone use this school year. Excessive smartphone use increases anxiety, depression and other mental health issues in children, he said.

The use of personal devices increased during pandemic school closures, resulting in some students doubling their recreational screen time, according to research. This has led to concerns about addiction to the devices.

Related Reading

August 27, 2024

This legislation builds on a previous law passed in 2019 that gave school districts the authority, but did not require them, to regulate smartphones during school hours. 

Assembly Bill 3216 allows school districts to enforce their cellphone policies by limiting student access to their smartphones. Currently, some schools enforce phone bans by requiring students to check them into “cellphone hotels” or stow them in locked pouches that can only be unlocked by school staff with a special magnet. 

Many schools with cellphone prohibitions confiscate phones until the end of the school day if students flout the rules.

The legislation allows for some exemptions. Students will not be prohibited from using their phones if there is an emergency, when they are given permission by school staff, when a doctor says that the student needs the phone for medical reasons or when a smartphone is required in a special education student's individualized education program.

The legislation also prohibits school officials and staff from accessing or monitoring a student’s online activities.

School districts are required to have “significant stakeholder participation” in developing their cellphone policy to ensure it is responsive to the needs of students, teachers and parents, according to the legislation. The policies must be updated every five years.

Adopting cellphone policies could collectively cost school districts hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to a state analysis of the legislation. Because it is a state mandate, the costs could be reimbursed by the state.

Final day to support local journalism!

EdSource is raising funds for a California Local News Fellow who will cover underserved communities. If you value trustworthy, data-driven stories like this one, please consider making a tax-deductible gift.

Share Article

Comments (4)

Leave a comment, your email address will not be published. required fields are marked * *.

Click here to cancel reply.

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Comments Policy

We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy .

Sue Turner 4 hours ago 4 hours ago

Staff should be limited to use of phones also. If students don’t have access to their phones then staff should not have access. I have e gone into school offices and front desk staff have bee6on their phones. I have had to wait for her to get off her phone so she could help me and do her job. I do not think students should be on phones during g school but it should be school wide!!@

Pia 12 hours ago 12 hours ago

As an educator I agree with this policy 100%; however, if there are not guidelines in place that parents must follow, or consequences that parents must face, none of this will ever matter.

Jack Jarvis 1 day ago 1 day ago

There have been numerous incidents where students were arranging fights, or threatening other students or even teachers. School officials have discovered fight clubs and You Tube sites where these incidents were publicized and celebrated. So how will that play out if schools can’t access or “monitor” what they do online? Especially when they are under the school’s supervision?

B.W. 1 day ago 1 day ago

Why would it cost the school thousands and why are students activities and searches not subject to being monitored? They are policed now as they should be.

EdSource Special Reports

Communication with parents is key to addressing chronic absenteeism, panel says

Low-cost, scalable engagement through texting and post cards can make a huge difference in getting students back in the habit of attending classes.

Helping students with mental health struggles may help them return to school

In California, 1 in 4 students are chronically absent putting them academically behind. A new USC study finds links between absenteeism and mental health struggles.

Millions of kids are still skipping school. Could the answer be recess — and a little cash?

Data gathered from over 40 states shows absenteeism improved slightly but remains above pre-pandemic levels. School leaders are trying various strategies to get students back to school.

California districts try many options before charging parents for student truancy

A 2010 law sponsored by then-District Attorney Kamala Harris, allows for the arrest of parents of chronically absent students.

EdSource in your inbox!

Stay ahead of the latest developments on education in California and nationally from early childhood to college and beyond. Sign up for EdSource’s no-cost daily email.

Stay informed with our daily newsletter

Research on K-12 maker education in the early 2020s – a systematic literature review

• Open access
• Published: 27 August 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Sini Davies   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3689-7967 1 &
• Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7493-7435 1  

119 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This systematic literature review focuses on the research published on K-12 maker education in the early 2020s, providing a current picture of the field. Maker education is a hands-on approach to learning that encourages students to engage in collaborative and innovative activities, using a combination of traditional design and fabrication tools and digital technologies to explore real-life phenomena and create tangible artifacts. The review examines the included studies from three perspectives: characteristics, research interests and findings, previous research gaps filled, and further research gaps identified. The review concludes by discussing the overall picture of the research on maker education in the early 2020s and suggesting directions for further studies. Overall, this review provides a valuable resource for researchers, educators, and policymakers to understand the current state of K-12 maker education research.

Similar content being viewed by others

Learning through Making and Maker Education

Maker Education: Opportunities and Threats for Engineering and Technology Education

Maker Movement in Education: History and Prospects

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Education and Educational Technology

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Maker culture developed through the pioneering efforts of Papert ( 1980 ) and his followers, such as Blikstein ( 2013 ), Kafai and Peppler ( 2011 ), and Resnick ( 2017 ). It has gained popularity worldwide as an educational approach to encourage student engagement in learning science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) (Martin, 2015 ; Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017 ; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014 ). Maker education involves engaging students to collaborate and innovate together by turning their ideas into tangible creations through the use of conceptual ideas (whether spoken or written), visual representations such as drawings and sketches, and material objects like prototypes and models (Kangas et al., 2013 ; Koh et al., 2015 ). Another core aspect of maker education is combining traditional design and fabrication tools and methods with digital technologies, such as 3D CAD and 3D printing, electronics, robotics, and programming, which enables students to create multifaceted artifacts and hybrid solutions to their design problems that include both digital and virtual features (e.g., Blikstein, 2013 ; Davies et al., 2023 ; Riikonen, Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, et al., 2020 ). The educational value of such multi-dimensional, concrete making has become widely recognized (e.g., Blikstein, 2013 ; Kafai, 1996 ; Kafai et al., 2014 ; Martin, 2015 ).

Maker education has been studied intensively, as indicated by several previous literature reviews (Iivari et al., 2016 ; Lin et al., 2020 ; Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017 ; Rouse & Rouse, 2022 ; Schad & Jones, 2020 ; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014 ; Yulis San Juan & Murai, 2022 ). These reviews have revealed how the field has been evolving and provided a valuable overall picture of the research on maker education before the 2020s, including only a few studies published in 2020 or 2021. However, the early years of the 2020s have been an extraordinary period in time in many ways. The world was hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by the global economic crises, increasing geopolitical tensions, and wars that have had a major impact on societies, education, our everyday lives, and inevitably on academic research as well. Furthermore, 2023 was a landmark year in the development of artificial intelligence (AI). In late 2022, OpenAI announced the release of ChatGPT 3.5, a major update to their large language model that is able to generate human-like text. Since then, sophisticated AI systems have rushed into our lives at an accelerating speed and are now becoming integrated with other technologies and applications, shaping how we live, work, our cultures, and our environments irreversibly (see, e.g., World Economic Forum, 2023 ). Thus, it can be argued that towards the end of 2023, the world had transitioned into the era of AI. It is essential that researchers, educators, and policymakers have a fresh overall understanding and a current picture of research on K-12 maker education to develop new, research-based approaches to technology and design education in the present rapidly evolving technological landscape of AI. This is especially important in order to avoid falling back towards shallow epistemic and educational practices of repetition and reproduction. The present systematic review was conducted to provide a ‘big picture’ of the research on K-12 maker education published in the extraordinary times of the early 2020s and to act as a landmark between the research on the field before and after the transition to the AI era. The review was driven by one main research question: How has the research on maker education developed in the early 2020s? To answer this question, three specific research questions were set:

What were the characteristics of the studies in terms of geographical regions, quantity of publications, research settings, and research methods?.

What were the research interests and findings of the reviewed studies?.

How did the reviewed studies fulfill the research gaps identified in previous literature reviews, and what further research gaps they identified?.

The following will outline the theoretical background of the systematic literature review by examining previous literature reviews on maker culture and maker education. This will be followed by an explanation of the methodologies used and findings. Finally, the review will conclude by discussing the overall picture of the research on maker education in the early 2020s and suggesting directions for further studies.

Previous literature reviews on maker culture and maker education

Several literature reviews have been conducted on maker education over the past ten years. The first one by Vossoughi and Bevan ( 2014 ) concentrated on the impact of tinkering and making on children’s learning, design principles and pedagogical approaches in maker programs, and specific tensions and possibilities within the maker movement for equity-oriented teaching and learning. They approached the maker movement in the context of out-of-school time STEM from three perspectives: (1) entrepreneurship and community creativity, (2) STEM pipeline and workforce development, and (3) inquiry-based education. At the time of their review, the research on maker education was just emerging, and therefore, their review included only a few studies. The review findings highlighted how STEM practices were developed through tinkering and striving for equity and intellectual safety (Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014 ). Furthermore, they also revealed how making activities support new ways of learning and collaboration in STEM. Their findings also pointed out some tensions and gaps in the literature, especially regarding a focus that is too narrow on STEM, tools, and techniques, as well as a lack of maker projects conducted within early childhood education or families.

In subsequent literature reviews (Iivari et al., 2016 ; Lin et al., 2020 ; Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017 ; Rouse & Rouse, 2022 ; Schad & Jones, 2020 ; Yulis San Juan & Murai, 2022 ), the interests of the reviews were expanded. Iivari and colleagues ( 2016 ) reviewed the potential of digital fabrication and making for empowering children and helping them see themselves as future digital innovators. They analyzed the studies based on five conditions: conditions for convergence, entry, social support, competence, and reflection, which were initially developed to help with project planning (Chawla & Heft, 2002 ). Their findings revealed that most of the studies included in their review emphasized the conditions for convergence, entry, and competence. However, only a few studies addressed the conditions for social support and reflection (Iivari et al., 2016 ). The reviewed studies emphasized children’s own interests and their voluntary participation in the projects. Furthermore, the studies highlighted projects leading to both material and learning-related outcomes and the development of children’s competencies in decision-making, design, engineering, technology, and innovation through projects.

Papavlasopoulou and colleagues ( 2017 ) took a broader scope on their systematic literature review, characterizing the overall development and stage of research on maker education through analyzing research settings, interests, and methods, synthesizing findings, and identifying research gaps. They were specifically interested in the technology used, subject areas that implement making activities, and evaluation methods of making instruction across all levels of education and in both formal and informal settings. Their data comprised 43 peer-reviewed empirical studies on maker-centered teaching and learning with children in their sample, providing participants with any making experience. In Papavlasopoulou and colleagues’ ( 2017 ) review, the included studies were published between 2011 and November 2015 as journal articles, conference papers, or book chapters. Most of the studies were conducted with fewer than 50 participants ( n  = 34), the most prominent age group being children from the beginning of primary school up to 14 years old ( n  = 22). The analyzed studies usually utilized more than one data collection method, mainly focusing on qualitative ( n  = 22) or mixed method ( n  = 11) approaches. Most included studies focused on programming skills and computational thinking ( n  = 32) or STEM subjects ( n  = 6). The studies reported a wide range of positive effects of maker education on learning, the development of participants’ self-efficacy, perceptions, and engagement (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017 ). There were hardly any studies reporting adverse effects.

Schad and Jones ( 2020 ) focused their literature review on empirical studies of the maker movement’s impacts on formal K12 educational environments, published between 2000 and 2018. Their Boolean search (maker movement AND education) to three major academic research databases resulted in 599 studies, of which 20 were included in the review. Fourteen of these studies focused on K12 students, and six on K12 teachers. All but three of the studies were published between 2014 and 2018. Similarly to the studies reported in the previous literature reviews (Iivari et al., 2016 ; Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017 ; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014 ), the vast majority of the studies were qualitative studies that reported positive opportunities for maker-centered approaches in STEM learning and promotion of excitement and motivation. On the other hand, the studies on K12 in- and preservice teacher education mainly focused on the importance of offering opportunities for teachers to engage in making activities. Both, studies focused on students or teachers, promoting equity and offering equally motivating learning experiences regardless of participants’ gender or background was emphasized.

Lin and colleagues’ ( 2020 ) review focused on the assessment of maker-centered learning activities. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, their review consisted of 60 peer-reviewed empirical studies on making activities that included making tangible artifacts and assessments to measure learning outcomes. The studies were published between 2006 and 2019. Lin and colleagues ( 2020 ) also focused on all age groups and activities in both formal and informal settings. Most studies included applied STEM as their main subject domain and utilized a technology-based platform, such as LilyPad Arduino microcontroller, Scratch, or laser cutting. The results of the review revealed that in most studies, learning outcomes were usually measured through the assessment of artifacts, tests, surveys, interviews, and observations. The learning outcomes measured were most often cognitive skills on STEM-related content knowledge or students’ feelings and attitudes towards STEM or computing.

The two latest systematic reviews, published in 2022, also focused on specific research interests in maker education (Rouse & Rouse, 2022 ; Yulis San Juan & Murai, 2022 ). Rouse and Rouse ( 2022 ) reviewed studies that specifically investigated learning in preK-12 maker education in formal school-based settings. Their analysis included 22 papers from seven countries, all but two published between 2017 and 2019. Only two of the studies focused on early childhood education, and three involved participants from the elementary level. Like previous reviews, most studies were conducted with qualitative methods ( n  = 17). On the other hand, in contrast to the earlier reviews (Lin et al., 2020 ; Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017 ; Schad & Jones, 2020 ), the studies included in the review did not concentrate on content-related outcomes on STEM or computing. Instead, a wide range of learning outcomes was investigated, such as 21st-century skills, agency, and materialized knowledge. On the other hand, they found that equity and inclusivity were not ubiquitously considered when researchers design makerspace interventions. Yulis San Juan and Murai’s ( 2022 ) literature review focused on frustration in maker-centered learning activities. Their analysis consisted of 28 studies published between 2013 and 2021. Their findings of the studies identified six factors that are most often recognized as the causes of frustration in makerspace activities: ‘unfamiliar pedagogical approach, time constraints, collaboration, outcome expectations, lack of skills and knowledge, and tool affordances and availability’ (Yulis San Juan & Murai, 2022 , p. 4).

From these previous literature reviews, five significant research gaps emerged that required further investigation and attention:

Teacher training, pedagogies, and orchestration of learning activities in maker education (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017 ; Rouse & Rouse, 2022 ; Schad & Jones, 2020 ; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014 ).

Wide variety of learning outcomes that potentially emerge from making activities, as well as the development of assessment methods and especially systematic ways to measure student learning (Lin et al., 2020 ; Rouse & Rouse, 2022 ; Schad & Jones, 2020 ).

Equity and inclusivity in maker education (Rouse & Rouse, 2022 ; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014 ).

Practices, tools, and technologies used in makerspaces and digital fabrication (Iivari et al., 2016 ; Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017 ).

Implementation and effects of maker education in formal, school-based settings and specific age groups, especially early childhood education (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017 ; Rouse & Rouse, 2022 ).

Methodology

This review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, adapting it to educational settings where studies are conducted with qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods (Page et al., 2021 ; Tong et al., 2012 ). Review protocols were defined for data collection, inclusion, exclusion, and quality criteria and the data analysis. In the following, the method used for each stage of the review process will be defined in detail.

Data collection

To gather high-quality and comprehensive data, a search for peer-reviewed articles was conducted in three international online bibliographic databases: Scopus, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and Academic Search Complete (EBSCO). Scopus and EBSCO are extensive multi-disciplinary databases for research literature, covering research published in over 200 disciplines, including education, from over 6000 publishers. ERIC concentrates exclusively on educational-related literature, covering publications from over 1900 full-text journals. These three databases were considered to offer a broad scope to capture comprehensive new literature on K-12 maker education. The search aimed to capture peer-reviewed literature on maker education and related processes conducted in both formal and informal K-12 educational settings. The search was limited to articles published in English between 2020 and 2023. Major search terms and their variations were identified to conduct the search, and a Boolean search string was formed from them. The search was implemented in October 2023 with the following search string that was used to search on titles, abstracts, and keywords:

(“maker education” OR “maker pedagogy” OR “maker-centered learning” OR “maker centered learning” OR “maker-centred learning” OR “maker centred learning” OR “maker learning” OR “maker space*” OR makerspace* OR “maker culture” OR “design learning” OR “maker practices” OR “collaborative invention*” OR co-invention*) AND (“knowledge-creation” OR “knowledge creation” OR “knowledgecreation” OR maker* OR epistemic OR “technology education” OR “design-based learning” OR “design based learning” OR “designbased learning” OR “design learning” OR “design thinking” OR “codesign” OR “co-design” OR “co design” OR craft* OR tinker* OR “collaborative learning” OR inquiry* OR “STEAM” OR “project-based learning” OR “project based learning” OR “projectbased learning” OR “learning project*” OR “knowledge building” OR “making” OR creati* OR innovat* OR process*) AND (school* OR pedago* OR “secondary education” OR “pre-primary education” OR “primary education” OR “special education” OR “early childhood education” OR “elementary education” OR primary-age* OR elementary-age* OR “k-12” OR “youth” OR teen* OR adolescen* OR child* OR “tween”) .

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The search provided 700 articles in total, 335 from Scopus, 345 from EBSCO, and 20 from ERIC that were aggregated to Rayyan (Ouzzani et al., 2016 ), a web and mobile app for systematic reviews, for further processing and analysis. After eliminating duplicates, 513 studies remained. At the next stage, the titles and abstracts of these studies were screened independently by two researchers to identify papers within the scope of this review. Any conference papers, posters, work-in-progress studies, non-peer-reviewed papers, review articles, and papers focusing on teacher education or teachers’ professional development were excluded from the review. To be included, the study had to meet all the following four inclusion criteria. It had to:

show empirical evidence.

describe any making experience or testing process conducted by the participants.

include participants from the K-12 age group in their sample.

have an educational purpose.

For example, studies that relied purely on statistical data collected outside a maker educational setting or studies that described a maker space design process but did not include any research data from an actual making experience conducted by participants from the K-12 age group were excluded. Studies conducted both in formal and informal settings were included in the review. Also, papers were included regardless of whether they were conducted using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. After the independent screening process, the results were combined, and any conflicting assessments were discussed and settled. Finally, 149 studies were included to be retrieved for further evaluation of eligibility, of which five studies were not available for retrieval. Thus, the screening resulted in 144 included studies with full text retrieved to apply quality criteria and further analysis.

Quality criteria

The quality of each of the remaining 144 studies was assessed against the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme’s ( 2023 ) qualitative study checklist, which was slightly adjusted for the context of this review. The checklist consisted of ten questions that each address one quality criterion:

Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research?.

Are the methodologies used appropriate?.

Was the research design appropriate to address the research aims?.

Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research?.

Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue?.

Has the relationship between the researcher and participants been adequately considered?.

Have ethical issues been taken into consideration?.

Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?.

Is there a clear statement of findings?.

How valuable is the research?.

The first author assessed the quality by reading each study’s full text. To be included in the final analysis, the study had to meet both the inclusion-exclusion and the quality criteria. In this phase, the final assessment for eligibility, 50 studies were excluded due to not meeting the initial inclusion and exclusion criteria, and 32 studies for not filling the criteria for quality. A total of 62 studies were included in the final analysis of this literature review. The PRISMA flow chart (Haddaway et al., 2022 ; see also Page et al., 2021 ) of the study selection process is presented in Fig.  1 .

PRISMA study selection flow chart (Haddaway et al., 2022 )

Qualitative content analysis of the reviewed studies

The analysis of the studies included in the review was conducted through careful reading of the full texts of the articles by the first author. To answer the first research question: What were the characteristics of the studies in terms of geographical regions, quantity of publications, research settings, and methods; a deductive coding framework was applied that consisted of characterizing factors of the study, its research setting as well as data collection and analysis methods applied. The predetermined categories of the study characteristics and the codes associated with each category are presented in Table  1 . The educational level of the participants was determined by following The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2012 ). Educational level was chosen instead of an age group as a coding category because, during the first abstract and title screening of the articles, it became evident that the studies describe their participants more often by their educational level than age. The educational levels were converted from national educational systems following the ISCED diagrams (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2021 ).

In addition to the deductive coding, the following analysis categories were gathered from the articles through inductive analysis: journal, duration of the project, number of participants, types of research data collected, and specific data analysis methods. Furthermore, the following characteristics of the studies were marked in the data when applicable: if the research was conducted as a case study, usage of control groups, specific focus on minority groups, gifted students, special needs students, or inclusion. Inductive coding and thematic analysis were applied to answer the second research question: what were the research interests and findings of the reviewed studies? The categorization of research interests was then combined with some aspects of the first part of the analysis to reveal further interesting characteristics about the latest developments in the research in maker education.

In the following, the findings of this systematic literature review will be presented for each research question separately.

Characteristics of research in K-12 maker education in the 2020s

Of the studies included in the review, presented in Table  2 and 20 studies were published in 2020, 17 in 2021, 12 in 2022, and 13 in 2023. The slight decline in publications does not necessarily indicate a decline in interest towards maker education but is more likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic that heavily limited hands-on activities and in situ data collection. Compared to the latest wide-scope review on maker education (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017 ), the number of high-quality studies published yearly appears to be at similar levels to those in the previous reviews. The studies included in the present review were published in 34 different peer-reviewed academic journals, of which 13 published two or more articles.

Regarding the geographic distribution of studies conducted on maker education, the field seems to be becoming more internationally spread. In 2020, the studies mainly published research conducted in either the USA ( n  = 6) or Finland ( n  = 12), whereas in the subsequent years, the studies were distributed more evenly around the world. However, North America and Scandinavia remained the epicenters of research on maker education, conducting over half of the studies published each year.

Most of the reviewed studies used qualitative methods ( n  = 42). Mixed methods were utilized in 13 studies, and quantitative methods in seven. Forty-four studies were described as case studies by their authors, and, on the other hand, a control group was used in four quantitative and two mixed methods studies. The analysis indicated an interesting research shift towards making activities part of formal educational settings instead of informal, extracurricular activities. Of the studies included in this review, 82% ( n  = 51) were conducted exclusively in formal educational settings. This contrasts significantly with the previous literature review by Papavlasopoulou and colleagues ( 2017 ), where most studies were conducted in informal settings. Furthermore, Schad and Jones ( 2020 ) identified only 20 studies between 2000 and 2018 conducted in formal educational settings in K12-education, and Rouse and Rouse ( 2022 ) identified 22 studies in similar settings from 2014 to early 2020. In these reviews, nearly all studies done in formal educational settings were published in the last years of the 2010 decade. Thus, this finding suggests that the change in learning settings started to emerge in the latter half of the 2010s, and in the 2020s, maker education in formal settings has become the prominent focus of research. The need for further research in formal settings was one of the main research gaps identified in previous literature reviews (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017 ; Rouse & Rouse, 2022 ).

In addition to the shift from informal to formal educational settings, the projects studied in the reviewed articles were conducted nearly as often in school and classroom environments ( n  = 26) as in designated makerspaces ( n  = 28). Only seven of the studied projects took place in other locations, such as youth clubs, libraries, or summer camps. One project was conducted entirely in an online learning environment. Most of the studied projects involved children exclusively from primary ( n  = 27) or lower secondary ( n  = 26) education levels. Only three studies were done with students in upper secondary education. Like the previous literature reviews, only a few studies concentrated on children in early childhood education (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017 ; Rouse & Rouse, 2022 ). Three articles reported projects conducted exclusively on early childhood education age groups, and three studies had participants from early childhood education together with children from primary ( n  = 2) or lower secondary education ( n  = 1).

The number of child participants in the studies varied between 1 and 576, and 14 studies also included teachers or other adults in their sample. The number of participating children in relation to the methods used is presented in Fig.  2 . Most of the qualitative studies had less than 100 children in their sample. However, there were three qualitative studies with 100 to 199 child participants (Friend & Mills, 2021 ; Leskinen et al., 2021 ; Riikonen, Kangas, et al., 2020 ) and one study with 576 participating children (Forbes et al., 2021 ). Studies utilizing mixed methods were either conducted with a very large number of child participants or with less than 100 participants, ranging from 4 to 99. Studies using quantitative methods, on the other hand, in most cases had 50–199 participants ( n  = 6). One quantitative study was conducted with 35 child participants (Yin et al., 2020 ). Many studies included participants from non-dominant backgrounds or with special educational needs. However, only two studies focused specifically on youth from non-dominant backgrounds (Brownell, 2020 ; Hsu et al., 2022 ), and three studies focused exclusively on inclusion and students with special needs (Giusti & Bombieri, 2020 ; Martin et al., 2020 ; Sormunen et al., 2020 ). In addition, one study specifically chose gifted students in their sample (Andersen et al., 2022 ).

Child participants in the reviewed studies in relation to the methods used

Slightly over half of the studied projects had only collaborative tasks ( n  = 36), 11 projects involved both collaborative and individual tasks, and in 11 projects, the participants worked on their own individual tasks. Four studies did not specify whether the project was built around collaborative or individual tasks. In most cases, the projects involved both traditional tangible tools and materials as well as digital devices and fabrication technologies ( n  = 54). In five projects, the students worked entirely with digital design and making methods, and in 3 cases, only with traditional tangible materials. Similarly, the outcomes of the project tasks were mainly focused on designing and building artifacts that included both digital and material elements ( n  = 31), or the project included multiple activities and building of several artifacts that were either digital, material, or had both elements ( n  = 17). Eleven projects included digital exploration without an aim to build a design artifact as a preparatory activity, whereas one project was based solely on digital exploration as the making activity. Material artifacts without digital elements were made in seven of the studied projects, and six concentrated solely on digital artifact making.

The duration of the projects varied between two hours (Tisza & Markopoulos, 2021 ) and five years (Keune et al., 2022 ). The number of studies in each categorized project duration range, in relation to the methods used, is presented in Fig.  3 . Over half of the projects lasted between 1 month and one year ( n  = 35), nine were longer, lasting between 1 and 5 years, and 14 were short projects lasting less than one month. Three qualitative studies and one quantitative study did not give any indication of the duration of the project. Most of the projects of qualitative studies took at least one month ( n  = 32), whereas projects in mixed method studies usually were shorter than three months ( n  = 10). On the other hand, quantitative studies usually investigated projects that were either shorter than three months ( n  = 4) or longer than one year ( n  = 2).

Duration of the studied projects in relation to the methods used

A multitude of different types of data was used in the reviewed studies. The data collection methods utilized by at least three reviewed studies are presented in Table  3 . Qualitative studies usually utilized several (2 to 6) different data gathering methods ( n  = 31), and all mixed method studies used more than one type of data (2 to 6). The most common data collection methods in qualitative studies were video data, interviews, and ethnographic observations combined with other data, such as design artifacts, photographs, and student portfolios. In addition to the data types specified in Table  3 , some studies used more unusual data collection methods such as lesson plans (Herro et al., 2021b ), the think-aloud protocol (Friend & Mills, 2021 ; Impedovo & Cederqvist, 2023 ), and social networks (Tenhovirta et al., 2022 ). Eleven qualitative studies used only one type of data, mainly video recordings ( n  = 9). Mixed method studies, on the other hand, relied often on interviews, pre-post measurements, surveys, and video data. In addition to the data types in Table  3 , mixed-method studies utilized biometric measurements (Hsu et al., 2022 ; Lee, 2021 ), lesson plans (Falloon et al., 2022 ), and teacher assessments (Doss & Bloom, 2023 ). In contrast to the qualitative and mixed method studies, all quantitative studies, apart from one (Yin et al., 2020 ), used only one form of research data, either pre-post measurements or surveys.

The findings of the data collection methods are similar to the previous literature review of Papavlasopoulou and colleagues ( 2017 ) regarding the wide variety of data types used in qualitative and mixed-method studies. However, when compared to their findings on specific types of research data used, video recordings have become the most popular way of collecting data in recent years, replacing interviews and ethnographic observations.

Research interests and findings of the reviewed studies

Seven categories of research interests emerged from the inductive coding of the reviewed studies. The categories are presented in Table  4 in relation to the research methods and educational levels of the participating children. Five qualitative studies, four mixed methods studies, and two quantitative studies had research interests from more than one category. Processes, activity, and practices, as well as sociomateriality in maker education, were studied exclusively with qualitative methods, and, on the other hand, nearly all studies on student motivation, interests, attitudes, engagement, and mindset were conducted with mixed or quantitative methods. In the two biggest categories, most of the studies utilized qualitative methods. Studies conducted with mixed or quantitative methods mainly concentrated on two categories: student learning and learning opportunities and student motivation, interests, attitudes, engagement, and mindset. In the following section, the research interests and findings for each category will be presented in detail.

Nearly half of the reviewed studies ( n  = 30) had a research interest in either student learning through making activities in general or learning opportunities provided by such activities. Five qualitative case studies (Giusti & Bombieri, 2020 ; Hachey et al., 2022 ; Hagerman et al., 2022 ; Hartikainen et al., 2023 ; Morado et al., 2021 ) and two mixed method studies (Martin et al., 2020 ; Vuopala et al., 2020 ) investigated the overall educational value of maker education. One of these studies was conducted in early childhood education (Hachey et al., 2022 ), and two in the context of inclusion in primary and lower secondary education (Giusti & Bombieri, 2020 ; Martin et al., 2020 ). They all reported positive findings on the development of children’s identity formation and skills beyond subject-specific competencies, such as creativity, innovation, cultural literacy, and learning skills. The studies conducted in the context of inclusion especially emphasized the potential of maker education in pushing students with special needs to achieve goals exceeding their supposed cognitive abilities (Giusti & Bombieri, 2020 ; Martin et al., 2020 ). Three studies (Forbes et al., 2021 ; Kumpulainen et al., 2020 ; Xiang et al., 2023 ) investigated student learning through the Maker Literacies Framework (Marsh et al., 2018 ). They also reported positive findings on student learning and skill development in early childhood and primary education, especially on the operational dimension of the framework, as well as on the cultural and critical dimensions. These positive results were further confirmed by the reviewed studies that investigated more specific learning opportunities provided by maker education on developing young people’s creativity, innovation skills, design thinking and entrepreneurship (Liu & Li, 2023 ; Timotheou & Ioannou, 2021 ; Weng et al., 2022a , b ), as well as their 21st-century skills (Iwata et al., 2020 ; Tan et al., 2021 ), and critical data literacies and critical thinking (Stornaiuolo, 2020 ; Weng et al., 2022a ).

Studies that investigated subject-specific learning most often focused on STEM subjects or programming and computational thinking. Based on the findings of these studies, maker-centered learning activities are effective but underused (Mørch et al., 2023 ). Furthermore, in early childhood education, such activities may support children taking on the role of a STEM practitioner (Hachey et al., 2022 ) and, on the other hand, provide them access to learning about STEM subjects beyond their grade level, even in upper secondary education (Tofel-Grehl et al., 2021 ; Winters et al., 2022 ). However, two studies (Falloon et al., 2022 ; Forbes et al., 2021 ) highlighted that it cannot be assumed that students naturally learn science and mathematics conceptual knowledge through making. To achieve learning in STEM subjects, especially science and mathematics, teachers need to specifically identify, design, and focus the making tasks on these areas. One study also looked at the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on STEM disciplines and found the restrictions on the use of common makerspaces and the changes in the technologies used to have been detrimental to student’s learning in these areas (Dúo-Terrón et al., 2022 ).

Only positive findings emerged from the reviewed studies on how digital making activities promote the development of programming and computational thinking skills and practices (Iwata et al., 2020 ; Liu & Li, 2023 ; Yin et al., 2020 ) and understanding of programming methods used in AI and machine learning (Ng et al., 2023 ). Experiences of fun provided by the making activities were also found to enhance further student learning about programming (Tisza & Markopoulos, 2021 ). One study also reported positive results on student learning of academic writing skills (Stewart et al., 2023 ). There were also three studies (Brownell, 2020 ; Greenberg et al., 2020 ; Wargo, 2021 ) that investigated the potential of maker education to promote equity and learning about social justice and injustice, as well as one study that examined learning opportunities on sustainability (Impedovo & Cederqvist, 2023 ). All these studies found making activities and makerspaces to be fertile ground for learning as well as identity and community building around these topics.

The studies with research interests in the second largest category, facilitation and teaching practices ( n  = 13), investigated a multitude of different aspects of this area. The studies on assessment methods highlighted the educational value of process-based portfolios (Fields et al., 2021 ; Riikonen, Kangas et al., 2020 ) and connected portfolios that are digital portfolios aligned with a connected learning framework (Keune et al., 2022 ). On the other hand, Walan and Brink ( 2023 ) concentrated on developing and analyzing the outcomes of a self-assessment tool for maker-centered learning activities designed to promote 21st-century skills. Several research interests emerged from the review related to scaffolding and implementation of maker education in schools. Riikonen, Kangas, and colleagues ( 2020 ) investigated the pedagogical infrastructures of knowledge-creating, maker-centered learning. It emphasized longstanding iterative, socio-material projects, where real-time support and embedded scaffolding are provided to the participants by a multi-disciplinary teacher team and ideally also by peer tutors. Multi-disciplinary collaboration was also emphasized by Pitkänen and colleagues ( 2020 ) in their study on the role of facilitators as educators in Fab Labs. Cross-age peer tutoring was investigated by five studies and found to be highly effective in promoting learning in maker education (Kumpulainen et al., 2020 ; Riikonen, Kangas, et al., 2020 ; Tenhovirta et al., 2022 ; Weng et al., 2022a ; Winters et al., 2022 ). Kajamaa and colleagues ( 2020 ) further highlighted the importance of team teaching and emphasized moving from authoritative interaction with students to collaboration. Sormunen and colleagues’ ( 2020 ) findings on teacher support in an inclusive setting demonstrated how teacher-directed scaffolding and facilitation of student cooperation and reflective discussions are essential in promoting inclusion-related participation, collaboration skills, and student competence building. One study (Andersen et al., 2022 ) took a different approach and investigated the possibilities of automatic scaffolding of making activities through AI. They concluded that automated scaffolding has excellent potential in maker education and went as far as to suggest that a transition should be made to it. One study also recognized the potential of combining making activities with drama education (Walan, 2021 ).

Versatile aspects of different processes, activities, and practices in maker-centered learning projects were studied by 11 qualitative studies included in this review. Two interlinked studies (Davies et al., 2023 ; Riikonen, Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al., 2020 ) investigated practices and processes related to collaborative invention, making, and knowledge-creation in lower secondary education. Their findings highlighted the multifaceted and iterative nature of such processes as well as the potential of maker education to offer students authentic opportunities for knowledge creation. Sinervo and colleagues ( 2021 ) also investigated the nature of the co-invention processes from the point of view of how children themselves describe and reflect their own processes. Their findings showed how children could recognize different external constraints involved in their design and the importance of iterative ideation processes and testing the ideas through prototyping. Innovation and invention practices were also studied by two other studies in both formal and informal settings with children from the primary level of education (Leskinen et al., 2023 ; Skåland et al., 2020 ). Skåland and colleagues’ ( 2020 ) findings suggest that narrative framing, that is, storytelling with the children, is an especially fruitful approach in a library setting and helps children understand their process of inventing. Similar findings were made in the study on the role of play in early childhood maker education (Fleer, 2022 ), where play enhanced design cognition and related processes and helped young children make sense of design. On the other hand, Leskinen and colleagues ( 2023 ) showed how innovations are jointly practiced in the interaction between students and teachers. They also emphasized the importance of using manifold information sources and material elements in creative innovation processes.

One study (Kajamaa & Kumpulainen, 2020 ) investigated collaborative knowledge practices and how those are mediated in school makerspaces. They identified four types of knowledge practices involved in maker-centered learning activities: orienting, interpreting, concretizing, and expanding knowledge, and how discourse, materials, embodied actions, and the physical space mediate these practices. Their findings also showed that due to the complexity of these practices, students might find maker-centered learning activities difficult. The sophisticated epistemic practices involved in collaborative invention processes were also demonstrated by the findings of Mehto, Riikonen, Hakkarainen, and colleagues ( 2020a ). Other investigators examined how art-based (Lindberg et al., 2020 ), touch-related (Friend & Mills, 2021 ), and information (Li, 2021 ) practices affect and can be incorporated into making. All three studies reported positive findings on the effects of these practices on student learning and, on the other hand, on the further development of the practices themselves.

Research interests related to student motivation, interests, attitudes, engagement, and mindset were studied by eight reviewed articles, all conducted with either mixed (n = 6) or quantitative methods (n = 2). The studies that investigated student motivation and engagement in making activities (Lee, 2021 ; Martin et al., 2020 ; Ng et al., 2023 ; Nikou, 2023 ) highlighted the importance of social interactions and collaboration as highly influential factors in these areas. On the other hand, positive attitudes towards collaboration also developed through these activities (Nguyen et al., 2023 ). Making activities conducted in the context of equity-oriented pedagogy were found to have great potential in sustaining non-dominant youths’, especially girls’, positive attitudes toward science (Hsu et al., 2022 ). On the other hand, a similar potential was not found in the development of interest in STEM subjects with autistic students (Martin et al., 2020 ). Two studies investigated student mindsets in maker-centered learning activities (Doss & Bloom, 2023 ; Vongkulluksn et al., 2021 ). Doss and Bloom ( 2023 ) identified seven different student mindset profiles present in making activities. Over half (56.67%) of the students in their study were found to share the same mindset profile, characterized as: ‘Flexible, Goal-Oriented, Persistent, Optimistic, Humorous, Realistic about Final Product’ (Doss & Bloom, 2023 , p. 4). In turn, Vongkulluksn and colleagues ( 2021 ) investigated the growth mindset trends for students who participated in a makerspace program for two years in an elementary school. Their findings revealed positive results of how makerspace environments can potentially improve students’ growth mindset.

Six studies included in this review analyzed collaboration within making activities. Students were found to be supportive and respectful towards each other as well as recognize and draw on each other’s expertise (Giusti & Bombieri, 2020 ; Herro et al., 2021a , b ). The making activities and outcomes were found to act as mediators in promoting mutual recognition between students with varying cognitive capabilities and special needs in inclusive settings (Herro et al., 2021a ). Furthermore, a community of interest that emerges through collaborative making activities was also found to be effective in supporting interest development and sustainability (Tan et al., 2021 ). Students were observed to divide work and share roles during their team projects, usually based on students’ interests, expertise, and skills (Herro et al., 2021a , b ). The findings of Stewart et al.‘s ( 2023 ) study suggested that when roles are preassigned to the team members by teachers, it decreases student stress in maker activities. However, if dominating leadership roles emerged in a team, that was found to lead to less advanced forms of collaboration than shared leadership within the team (Leskinen et al., 2021 ).

Sociomaterial aspects of making activities were in the interest of three reviewed studies (Kumpulainen & Kajamaa, 2020 ; Mehto et al., 2020a ; Mehto et al., 2020b ). Materials were shown to have an active role in knowledge-creation and ideation in open-ended maker-centered learning (Mehto et al., 2020a ), which allows for thinking together with the materials (Mehto et al., 2020b ). The task-related physical materials act as a focal point for team collaboration and invite participation (Mehto et al., 2020b ). Furthermore, a study by Kumpulainen and Kajamaa ( 2020 ) emphasized the sociomaterial dynamics of agency, where agency flows in any combination between students, teachers, and materials. However, the singularity or multiplicity of the materials potentially affects the opportunities for access and control of the process (Mehto et al., 2020b ).

In addition to empirical research interests, five studies focused on developing research methods for measuring and analyzing different aspects of maker education. Biometric measurements were investigated as a potential data source to detect engagement in making activities (Lee, 2021 ). Yin and colleagues ( 2020 ) focused on developing instruments for the quantitative measurement of computational thinking skills. On the other hand, Timotheou and Ioannou ( 2021 ) designed and tested an analytic framework and coding scheme to analyze learning and innovation skills from qualitative interviews and video data. Artificial intelligence as a potential, partially automated tool for analyzing CSCL artifacts was also investigated by one study (Andersen et al., 2022 ). Finally, Riikonen, Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, and colleagues ( 2020 ) developed visual video data analysis methods for investigating collaborative design and making activities.

Slightly over half of the reviewed studies ( n  = 33) made clear suggestions for future research. Expectedly, these studies suggested further investigation of their own research interests. However, across the studies, five themes of recommendations for future research interests and designs emerged from the data:

1. Studies conducted with diverse range of participants , pedagogical designs , and contexts (Hartikainen et al., 2023 ; Kumpulainen & Kajamaa, 2020 ; Leskinen et al., 2023 ; Lindberg et al., 2020 ; Liu & Li, 2023 Martin et al., 2020 ; Mehto et al., 2020b ; Nguyen et al., 2023 ; Sormunen et al., 2020 ; Tan et al., 2021 ; Weng et al., 2022a , b ; Yin et al., 2020 ).

2. Longitudinal studies to confirm the existing research findings, further develop pedagogical approaches to making, and to better understand the effects of maker education on students later in their lives (Davies et al., 2023 ; Fields et al., 2021 ; Kumpulainen et al., 2020 ; Kumpulainen & Kajamaa, 2020 ; Stornaiuolo, 2020 ; Tisza & Markopoulos, 2021 ; Walan & Brink, 2023 ; Weng et al., 2022a ).

3. Development of new methods and applying existing methods in different conditions (Doss & Bloom, 2023 ; Kumpulainen et al., 2020 ; Leskinen et al., 2021 ; Mehto et al., 2020b ; Mørch et al., 2023 ; Tan et al., 2021 ; Timotheou & Ioannou, 2021 ; Tisza & Markopoulos, 2021 ).

4. Identifying optimal conditions and practices for learning, skill, and identity development through making (Davies et al., 2023 ; Fields et al., 2021 ; Hartikainen et al., 2023 ; Tofel-Grehl et al., 2021 ).

5. Collaboration from the perspectives of how it affects processes and outcomes of making activities and, on the other hand, how such activities affect collaboration (Pitkänen et al., 2020 ; Tisza & Markopoulos, 2021 ; Weng et al., 2022a ).

Discussion and conclusions

This systematic literature review was conducted to describe the development of research on maker education in the early 2020s. Sixty-two studies from the initial 700 studies identified from the three major educational research databases were included in the review. The qualitative analysis of the reviewed studies revealed some interesting developments in the field. Overall, the research on maker education appears to be active. Maker education seems to be attracting interest from researchers around the globe. However, two epicenters of research, North America and Scandinavia, namely Finland, appear to have an active role in maker research.

Most studies relied on rich qualitative data, often collected using several methods. Video recordings have become a popular way to collect data in maker education research. Although qualitative methods remained the dominant methodological approach in the field (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017 ; Rouse & Rouse, 2022 ; Schad & Jones, 2020 ), mixed and quantitative methods were used in nearly a third of the reviewed studies. These studies mainly measured learning outcomes or participants’ motivation, interests, attitudes, engagement, and mindsets. There was a great variety in the duration of the maker projects and the number of participants. The projects lasted from less than a day up to five years, and the number of participants varied similarly from one to nearly six hundred. Methodological development was also within the research interests of several studies in this review. Developments were made both in qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Such methodological development was one of the research gaps identified in the previous literature reviews (e.g., Schad & Jones, 2020 ).

The analysis of the reviewed studies revealed an interesting shift in research on maker education from informal settings to formal education. Our review revealed that most studies were conducted exclusively in formal education and often as part of the curricular activity. The need for this development was called for in the previous literature reviews (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017 ; Rouse & Rouse, 2022 ). However, only a handful of studies were conducted in early childhood education. Winters and colleagues’ ( 2022 ) study adopted a very interesting setting where children from early childhood education worked together and were mentored by students from lower secondary education. This type of research setting could have great potential for future research in maker education.

Another research gap identified in the previous literature reviews was the need to study and measure a wide variety of potential learning opportunities and outcomes of maker education (Lin et al., 2020 ; Rouse & Rouse, 2022 ; Schad & Jones, 2020 ). The analysis revealed that new research in the field is actively filling this gap. Skills that go beyond subject-specific content and the development of participants’ identities through making activities were especially actively studied from various perspectives. The findings of these studies were distinctively positive, corresponding with the conclusions of the previous literature reviews (e.g., Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017 ; Schad & Jones, 2020 ; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014 ). This potential of maker education should be recognized by educators and policymakers, especially when the advancements in AI technologies will forefront the need for the humane skills of working creatively with knowledge and different ways of knowing, empathic engagement, and collaboration (e.g., Liu et al., 2024 ; Markauskaite et al., 2022 ; Qadir, 2023 ; World Economic Forum, 2023 ). Some of these studies also addressed the issue of promoting equity through maker education, which was called for in the previous literature review (Rouse & Rouse, 2022 ; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014 ). However, considering the small number of these studies, more research will still be needed.

The two other popular research interest categories that emerged from the analysis were facilitation and teaching practices as well as processes, activities, and practices involved in making – both identified as research gaps in the previous literature reviews (Iivari et al., 2016 ; Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017 ; Rouse & Rouse, 2022 ; Schad & Jones, 2020 ; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014 ). The teaching practices and scaffolding of making activities were investigated from different aspects, such as assessment methods, implementation of maker education in schools, and cross-age peer tutoring. The results of these studies highlighted the positive effects of multi-disciplinary collaboration and peer tutoring. Such pedagogical approaches should be more widely promoted as integral parts of the pedagogical infrastructure in schools. However, this calls for measures from policymakers and school authorities to enable such collaborative ways of teaching that extend beyond the traditional structures of school organizations. Furthermore, although research on this area has been active and multi-faceted, the facilitation of maker education in inclusive settings especially calls for further investigation. In terms of processes, practices, and activities involved in making, the reviewed studies investigated a variety of aspects that revealed the sophisticated epistemic practices involved and the importance of concrete making, prototyping, and iterative ideation in maker-centered learning activities. These studies further highlighted the potential of maker education to offer students authentic opportunities for knowledge creation. Studies also examined collaboration and sociomateriality involved in maker education. Especially sociomateriality is a relatively new, emerging area of research in maker education.

The reviewed studies identified five research gaps that require further investigation: (1) conducting studies with a diverse range of participants, pedagogical designs, and contexts; (2) carrying out longitudinal studies; (3) developing new methods and applying existing methods in different settings; (4) identifying the most effective conditions and practices for learning, skill development and identity formation in maker education, and (5) understanding how collaboration affects the processes and outcomes of making activities and vice versa. In addition to the research gaps identified by reviewed studies, the analysis revealed additional gaps. Studies conducted in early childhood education and inclusive settings remain especially under-represented, although maker pedagogies have been found to have great potential in these areas. Similarly, many researchers have recognized the potential of maker education to promote equality between children from different backgrounds and genders. Still, only a handful of studies investigated these issues. Thus, more research is needed, especially on best practices and pedagogical approaches in this area. Furthermore, the processes involved in and affecting maker-centered learning call for further investigations.

The field has matured based on the analysis of the reviewed studies. It is moving from striving to understand what can be achieved to investigating the underlying conditions behind learning through making, how desired outcomes can be best achieved, as well as how the processes involved in making unfold, what the effects are in the long run, and how to understand best and measure different phenomena related to making. Furthermore, researchers are looking into more and more opportunities to expand the learning opportunities of maker education by combining them with other creative pedagogies and applying them to projects that seek to introduce subject-specific content beyond STEM to students.

This systematic literature review has several limitations. The typical limitations of most review studies, the potential loss of search results due to limited search terms and databases used, apply to this review. For example, more culturally diverse search results might have been reached with the addition of other databases and further search terms. However, the search string was carefully designed and tested to include as many common terms used in maker education research as possible, including possible variations. Furthermore, the three databases used in the search, Scopus, ERIC, and EBSCO, are regarded as the most comprehensive databases of educational research available. Thus, although some studies might not have been identified because of these limitations, it can be assumed that this review gives a comprehensive enough snapshot of research on maker education in the early years of the 2020s.

Andersen, R., Mørch, A. I., & Litherland, K. T. (2022). Collaborative learning with block-based programming: Investigating human-centered artificial intelligence in education. Behaviour & Information Technology , 41 (9), 1830–1847. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2083981

Article   Google Scholar  

Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of invention. In C. Büching & J. Walter-Herrmann (Eds.), FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors (pp. 203–222). Transcript Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1515/transcript.9783839423820.203

Brownell, C. J. (2020). Keep walls down instead of up: Interrogating writing/making as a vehicle for black girls’ literacies. Education Sciences , 10 (6), 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10060159

Chawla, L., & Heft, H. (2002). Children’s competence and the ecology of communities: A functional approach to the evaluation of participation. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 22 (1–2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2002.0244

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2023). CASP Qualitative Studies Checklist . https://casp-uk.net/checklists/casp-qualitative-studies-checklist-fillable.pdf

Davies, S., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2023). Idea generation and knowledge creation through maker practices in an artifact-mediated collaborative invention project. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 39 , 100692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2023.100692

Doss, K., & Bloom, L. (2023). Mindset and the desire for feedback during creative tasks. Journal of Creativity , 33 (1), 100047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2023.100047

Dúo-Terrón, P., Hinojo-Lucena, F. J., Moreno-Guerrero, A. J., & López-Belmonte, J. (2022). Impact of the pandemic on STEAM disciplines in the sixth grade of primary education. European Journal of Investigation in Health Psychology and Education , 12 (8), 989–1005. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe12080071

Falloon, G., Forbes, A., Stevenson, M., Bower, M., & Hatzigianni, M. (2022). STEM in the making? Investigating STEM learning in junior school makerspaces. Research in Science Education , 52 (2), 511–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09949-3

Fields, D. A., Lui, D., Kafai, Y. B., Jayathirtha, G., Walker, J., & Shaw, M. (2021). Communicating about computational thinking: Understanding affordances of portfolios for assessing high school students’ computational thinking and participation practices. Computer Science Education , 31 (2), 224–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1866933

Fleer, M. (2022). The genesis of design: Learning about design, learning through design to learning design in play. International Journal of Technology and Design Education , 32 (3), 1441–1468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09670-w

Forbes, A., Falloon, G., Stevenson, M., Hatzigianni, M., & Bower, M. (2021). An analysis of the nature of young students’ STEM learning in 3D technology-enhanced makerspaces. Early Education and Development , 32 (1), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1781325

Friend, L., & Mills, K. A. (2021). Towards a typology of touch in multisensory makerspaces. Learning Media and Technology , 46 (4), 465–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2021.1928695

Giusti, T., & Bombieri, L. (2020). Learning inclusion through makerspace: A curriculum approach in Italy to share powerful ideas in a meaningful context. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology , 37 (3), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-10-2019-0095

Greenberg, D., Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Archer, L. (2020). Redefining entrepreneurialism in the maker movement: A critical youth approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences , 29 (4–5), 471–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2020.1749633

Hachey, A. C., An, S. A., & Golding, D. E. (2022). Nurturing kindergarteners’ early STEM academic identity through makerspace pedagogy. Early Childhood Education Journal , 50 (3), 469–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01154-9

Haddaway, N. R., Page, M. J., Pritchard, C. C., & McGuinness, L. A. (2022). PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and open synthesis. Campbell Systematic Reviews , 18 (2). https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1230

Hagerman, M. S., Cotnam-Kappel, M., Turner, J. A., & Hughes, J. M. (2022). Literacies in the making: Exploring elementary students’ digital-physical meaning-making practices while crafting musical instruments from recycled materials. Technology Pedagogy and Education , 31 (1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2021.1997794

Hartikainen, H., Ventä-Olkkonen, L., Kinnula, M., & Iivari, N. (2023). We were proud of our idea: How teens and teachers gained value in an entrepreneurship and making project. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction , 35 , 100552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100552

Herro, D., Quigley, C., & Abimbade, O. (2021a). Assessing elementary students’ collaborative problem-solving in makerspace activities. Information and Learning Sciences , 122 (11/12), 774–794. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-08-2020-0176

Herro, D., Quigley, C., Plank, H., & Abimbade, O. (2021b). Understanding students’ social interactions during making activities designed to promote computational thinking. The Journal of Educational Research , 114 (2), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1884824

Hsu, P. S., Lee, E. M., & Smith, T. J. (2022). Exploring the influence of equity-oriented pedagogy on non-dominant youths’ attitudes toward science through making. RMLE Online , 45 (8), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2022.2116668

Iivari, N., Molin-Juustila, T., & Kinnula, M. (2016). The future digital innovators: Empowering the young generation with digital fabrication and making completed research paper. Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2016. 2 .

Impedovo, M., & Cederqvist, A. M. (2023). Socio-(im)material-making activities in minecraft: Retracing digital literacy applied to ESD. Research in Science & Technological Education , 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2023.2245355

International Organization for Standardization (2020). ISO 3166-2:2020 - Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions — Part 2: Country subdivision code . https://www.iso.org/standard/72483.html

Iwata, M., Pitkänen, K., Laru, J., & Mäkitalo, K. (2020). Exploring potentials and challenges to develop twenty-first century skills and computational thinking in K-12 maker education. Frontiers in Education , 5 . https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00087

Kafai, Y. B. (1996). Learning through artifacts: Communities of practice in classrooms. AI and Society , 10 (1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02716758

Kafai, Y. B., & Peppler, K. A. (2011). Youth, technology, and DIY: Developing participatory competencies in creative media production. Review of Research in Education , 35 (1), 89–119. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X10383211

Kafai, Y., Fields, D. A., & Searle, K. (2014). Electronic textiles as disruptive designs: Supporting and challenging maker activities in schools. Harvard Educational Review , 84 (4), 532–556. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.46m7372370214783

Kajamaa, A., & Kumpulainen, K. (2020). Students’ multimodal knowledge practices in a makerspace learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 15 (4), 411–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09337-z

Kajamaa, A., Kumpulainen, K., & Olkinuora, H. (2020). Teacher interventions in students’ collaborative work in a technology-rich educational makerspace. British Journal of Educational Technology , 51 (2), 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12837

Kangas, K., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2013). Figuring the world of designing: Expert participation in elementary classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23 (2), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9187-z

Keune, A., Peppler, K., & Dahn, M. (2022). Connected portfolios: Open assessment practices for maker communities. Information and Learning Sciences , 123 (7/8), 462–481. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-03-2022-0029

Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H. Y. (2015). Design thinking for education: Conceptions and applications in teaching and learning . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-444-3

Kumpulainen, K., & Kajamaa, A. (2020). Sociomaterial movements of students’ engagement in a school’s makerspace. British Journal of Educational Technology , 51 (4), 1292–1307. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12932

Kumpulainen, K., Kajamaa, A., Leskinen, J., Byman, J., & Renlund, J. (2020). Mapping digital competence: Students’ maker literacies in a school’s makerspace. Frontiers in Education , 5 . https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00069

Lee, V. R. (2021). Youth engagement during making: Using electrodermal activity data and first-person video to generate evidence-based conjectures. Information and Learning Sciences , 122 (3/4), 270–291. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-08-2020-0178

Leskinen, J., Kajamaa, A., & Kumpulainen, K. (2023). Learning to innovate: Students and teachers constructing collective innovation practices in a primary school’s makerspace. Frontiers in Education , 7 . https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.936724

Leskinen, J., Kumpulainen, K., Kajamaa, A., & Rajala, A. (2021). The emergence of leadership in students’ group interaction in a school-based makerspace. European Journal of Psychology of Education , 36 (4), 1033–1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00509-x

Lindberg, L., Fields, D. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2020). STEAM maker education: Conceal/reveal of personal, artistic and computational dimensions in high school student projects. Frontiers in Education , 5 . https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00051

Lin, Q., Yin, Y., Tang, X., Hadad, R., & Zhai, X. (2020). Assessing learning in technology-rich maker activities: A systematic review of empirical research. Computers and Education , 157 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103944

Liu, S., & Li, C. (2023). Promoting design thinking and creativity by making: A quasi-experiment in the information technology course. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 49 , 101335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101335

Liu, W., Fu, Z., Zhu, Y., Li, Y., Sun, Y., Hong, X., Li, Y., & Liu, M. (2024). Co-making the future: Crafting tomorrow with insights and perspectives from the China-U.S. young maker competition. International Journal of Technology and Design Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-024-09887-5

Li, X. (2021). Young people’s information practices in library makerspaces. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 72 (6), 744–758. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24442

Markauskaite, L., Marrone, R., Poquet, O., Knight, S., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Howard, S., Tondeur, J., De Laat, M., Buckingham Shum, S., Gašević, D., & Siemens, G. (2022). Rethinking the entwinement between artificial intelligence and human learning: What capabilities do learners need for a world with AI? Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , 3 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100056

Marsh, J., Arnseth, H., & Kumpulainen, K. (2018). Maker literacies and maker citizenship in the MakEY (makerspaces in the early years) project. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction , 2 (3), 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti2030050

Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research , 5 (1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1099

Martin, W. B., Yu, J., Wei, X., Vidiksis, R., Patten, K. K., & Riccio, A. (2020). Promoting science, technology, and engineering self-efficacy and knowledge for all with an autism inclusion maker program. Frontiers in Education , 5 . https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00075

Mehto, V., Riikonen, S., Hakkarainen, K., Kangas, K., & Seitamaa‐Hakkarainen, P. (2020a). Epistemic roles of materiality within a collaborative invention project at a secondary school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51 (4), 1246–1261. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12942

Mehto, V., Riikonen, S., Kangas, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2020b). Sociomateriality of collaboration within a small team in secondary school maker-centered learning project. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction , 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2020.100209

Morado, M. F., Melo, A. E., & Jarman, A. (2021). Learning by making: A framework to revisit practices in a constructionist learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology , 52 (3), 1093–1115. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13083

Mørch, A. I., Flø, E. E., Litherland, K. T., & Andersen, R. (2023). Makerspace activities in a school setting: Top-down and bottom-up approaches for teachers to leverage pupils’ making in science education. Learning Culture and Social Interaction , 39 , 100697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2023.100697

Ng, D. T. K., Su, J., & Chu, S. K. W. (2023). Fostering secondary school students’ AI literacy through making AI-driven recycling bins. Education and Information Technologies , 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12183-9

Nguyen, H. B. N., Hong, J. C., Chen, M. L., Ye, J. N., & Tsai, C. R. (2023). Relationship between students’ hands-on making self-efficacy, perceived value, cooperative attitude and competition preparedness in joining an iSTEAM contest. Research in Science & Technological Education , 41 (1), 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1895100

Nikou, S. A. (2023). Student motivation and engagement in maker activities under the lens of the activity theory: A case study in a primary school. Journal of Computers in Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-023-00258-y

Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan – a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews , 5 (1), 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews , 10 (1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2017). Empirical studies on the Maker Movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review. Entertainment Computing , 18 , 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2016.09.002

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstroms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas . Basic Books.

Pitkänen, K., Iwata, M., & Laru, J. (2020). Exploring technology-oriented fab lab facilitators’ role as educators in K-12 education: Focus on scaffolding novice students’ learning in digital fabrication activities. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction , 26 , 100207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2020.100207

Qadir, J. (2023). Engineering education in the era of ChatGPT: Promise and pitfalls of generative AI for education. IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON , 2023-May . https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON54358.2023.10125121

Resnick, M. (2017). Lifelong kindergarten: Cultivating creativity through projects, passions, peers, and play . MIT Press.

Riikonen, S., Kangas, K., Kokko, S., Korhonen, T., Hakkarainen, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2020). The development of pedagogical infrastructures in three cycles of maker-centered learning projects. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 25 (2), 29–49.

Riikonen, S., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2020). Bringing maker practices to school: Tracing discursive and materially mediated aspects of student teams’ collaborative making processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15 (3), 319–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09330-6

Rouse, R., & Rouse, A. G. (2022). Taking the maker movement to school: A systematic review of preK-12 school-based makerspace research. Educational Research Review , 35 . Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100413

Schad, M., & Jones, W. M. (2020). The maker movement and education: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 52 (1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1688739

Sinervo, S., Sormunen, K., Kangas, K., Hakkarainen, K., Lavonen, J., Juuti, K., Korhonen, T., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2021). Elementary school pupils’ co-inventions: Products and pupils’ reflections on processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31 (4), 653–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09577-y

Skåland, G., Arnseth, H. C., & Pierroux, P. (2020). Doing inventing in the library. Analyzing the narrative framing of making in a public library context. Education Sciences , 10 (6), 158. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10060158

Sormunen, K., Juuti, K., & Lavonen, J. (2020). Maker-centered project-based learning in inclusive classes: Supporting students’ active participation with teacher-directed reflective discussions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 18 (4), 691–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09998-9

Stewart, A., Yuan, J., Kale, U., Valentine, K., & McCartney, M. (2023). Maker activities and academic writing in a middle school science classroom. International Journal of Instruction , 16 (2), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.1628a

Stornaiuolo, A. (2020). Authoring data stories in a media makerspace: Adolescents developing critical data literacies. Journal of the Learning Sciences , 29 (1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1689365

Tan, A. L., Jamaludin, A., & Hung, D. (2021). In pursuit of learning in an informal space: A case study in the Singapore context. International Journal of Technology and Design Education , 31 (2), 281–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09553-1

Tenhovirta, S., Korhonen, T., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2022). Cross-age peer tutoring in a technology-enhanced STEAM project at a lower secondary school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32 (3), 1701–1723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09674-6

Timotheou, S., & Ioannou, A. (2021). Learning and innovation skills in making contexts: A comprehensive analytical framework and coding scheme. Educational Technology Research and Development , 69 (6), 3179–3207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10067-8

Tisza, G., & Markopoulos, P. (2021). Understanding the role of fun in learning to code. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction , 28 , 100270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100270

Tofel-Grehl, C., Ball, D., & Searle, K. (2021). Making progress: Engaging maker education in science classrooms to develop a novel instructional metaphor for teaching electric potential. The Journal of Educational Research , 114 (2), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2020.1838410

Tong, A., Flemming, K., McInnes, E., Oliver, S., & Craig, J. (2012). Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 12 (1), 181. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2012). International standard classification of education: ISCED 2011 . https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-isced-2011-en.pdf

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2021). Using ISCED Diagrams to Compare Education Systems . https://neqmap.bangkok.unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/UIS-ISCED-DiagramsCompare-web.pdf

Vongkulluksn, V. W., Matewos, A. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2021). Growth mindset development in design-based makerspace: A longitudinal study. The Journal of Educational Research , 114 (2), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1872473

Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (2014). Making and tinkering: A review of the literature. National Research Council Committee on Out of School Time STEM , 67 , 1–55.

Google Scholar  

Vuopala, E., Guzmán Medrano, D., Aljabaly, M., Hietavirta, D., Malacara, L., & Pan, C. (2020). Implementing a maker culture in elementary school – students’ perspectives. Technology Pedagogy and Education , 29 (5), 649–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1796776

Walan, S. (2021). The dream performance – a case study of young girls’ development of interest in STEM and 21st century skills, when activities in a makerspace were combined with drama. Research in Science & Technological Education , 39 (1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1647157

Walan, S., & Brink, H. (2023). Students’ and teachers’ responses to use of a digital self-assessment tool to understand and identify development of twenty-first century skills when working with makerspace activities. International Journal of Technology and Design Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09845-7

Wargo, J. M. (2021). Sound civics, heard histories: A critical case of young children mobilizing digital media to write (right) injustice. Theory & Research in Social Education , 49 (3), 360–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2021.1874582

Weng, X., Chiu, T. K. F., & Jong, M. S. Y. (2022a). Applying relatedness to explain learning outcomes of STEM maker activities. Frontiers in Psychology , 12 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.800569

Weng, X., Chiu, T. K. F., & Tsang, C. C. (2022b). Promoting student creativity and entrepreneurship through real-world problem-based maker education. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 45 , 101046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101046

Winters, K. L., Gallagher, T. L., & Potts, D. (2022). Creativity, collaboration, and cross-age mentorships using STEM-infused texts. Elementary STEM Journal , 27 (2), 7–14.

World Economic Forum (2023). The future of jobs report 2023 . https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2023/

Xiang, S., Yang, W., & Yeter, I. H. (2023). Making a makerspace for children: A mixed-methods study in Chinese kindergartens. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction , 36 , 100583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100583

Yin, Y., Hadad, R., Tang, X., & Lin, Q. (2020). Improving and assessing computational thinking in maker activities: The integration with physics and engineering learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology , 29 (2), 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09794-8

Yulis San Juan, A., & Murai, Y. (2022). Turning frustration into learning opportunities during maker activities: A review of literature. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction , 33 , 100519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100519

Download references

Open Access funding provided by University of Helsinki (including Helsinki University Central Hospital). This work has been funded by the Strategic Research Council (SRC) established within the Research Council of Finland, grants #312527, #352859, and # 352971.

Open Access funding provided by University of Helsinki (including Helsinki University Central Hospital).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Sini Davies & Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sini Davies .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Davies, S., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. Research on K-12 maker education in the early 2020s – a systematic literature review. Int J Technol Des Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-024-09921-6

Download citation

Accepted : 02 July 2024

Published : 27 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-024-09921-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Maker education
• K-12 education
• Systematic literature review
• Maker-centered learning
• Maker culture
• Design and making
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Quality Counts 2021: Educational Opportunities and Performance in the United States

• Share article

Based on a comprehensive analysis of data, the Quality Counts report card answers a key question: Where does my state rank for educational opportunities and performance?

States are graded and ranked in three categories: Chance for Success (January), School Finance (June), and K-12 Achievement (September). A state’s overall grade, published in September, is the average of its scores on the three separate indices tracked for the report card.

National Overview

This year, the nation earns an overall score of 76.2 out of 100 points and a grade of C.

Diving into the findings for the three graded indices, the nation earns a B-minus in the Chance-for-Success category. The average state receives a grade of C in both School Finance and K-12 Achievement. More details on results in these categories are reported below.

Chance for Success: Gauging Educational Opportunities

The EdWeek Research Center developed the Chance-for-Success Index to better understand the role that education plays in promoting positive outcomes across an individual’s lifetime. Based on an original state-by-state analysis, this index combines information from 13 indicators that span a person’s life from cradle to career. Those indicators fall into three sub-sections: early foundations, school years, and adult outcomes.

The index evaluates each state using a range of measuring sticks, including:

• How educated are parents?
• What share of 3- and 4-year-olds are enrolled in preschool?
• Are K-12 students proficient in reading and math?
• What’s the high school graduation rate?
• What percentage of adults have steady employment?

Overall, the top state on the Chance-for-Success Index is Massachusetts, with a score of 91.6 and a letter grade of A-minus. At the other end of the spectrum, New Mexico receives the lowest score at 69.0, a D-plus.

Early Foundations: Are Kids Getting Off to a Good Start?

For early foundations, which examines factors that help children get off to a good start, New Hampshire earns the highest mark at 97.7 or a grade of A. New Mexico is the lowest-scoring state, with a score of 75.6 and a grade of C.

School Years: How Are Students Faring in School?

Massachusetts tops the nation for the school years, a sub-category focusing on metrics related to pre-K enrollment through postsecondary participation. It posts a score of 93.5, which corresponds to a grade of A. By comparison, New Mexico gets the lowest score at 64.8, a D.

Adult Outcomes: Are Adults Finding Opportunities for Success?

In the area of adult outcomes, based on postsecondary educational attainment and workforce indicators, the District of Columbia earns the highest score of 99.7 or an A. By contrast, Mississippi receives the lowest mark, a 66.2 or a D.

School Finance: Grading the Nation on Spending and Equity

The school finance analysis examines two critical aspects of school spending. Of the eight indicators in this category, four assess school spending patterns, while the remaining metrics gauge equity in the distribution of funding across the districts within each state.

Overall, the top state in school finance is New Jersey, with a score of 91.2 and a letter grade of A-minus. At the other end of the spectrum, Nevada receives the lowest score at 62.4, a D-minus.

Spending: How Much Are States Devoting to Education?

The spending metrics shed light on major questions, such as:

• What does the state spend per-pupil when adjusted for regional cost differences?
• What percent of students are in districts with per-pupil spending at or above the U.S. average?
• What share of total taxable resources are spent on education?

Across the spending indicators, New Jersey finishes first with an A and a score of 93.5. Utah receives the lowest score at 40.3, an F.

Equity: How Are Funds Distributed Across Districts?

Topics covered by the equity analysis include:

• To what degree does funding for property-poor districts differ from that of their wealthier counterparts?
• How different are the spending levels of the highest- and lowest-spending districts?

On the equity measures, Maryland’s score of 93.9 tops the nation and results in an A. Alaska records a C and a score of 74.1, the lowest in the nation.

The District of Columbia and Hawaii do not receive finance grades because they are single-district jurisdictions.

K-12 Achievement

The K-12 Achievement Index examines 18 distinct achievement measures related to reading and math performance, high school graduation rates, and the results of Advanced Placement exams. The index assigns equal weight to current levels of performance and changes over time. It also places an emphasis on equity, by examining both poverty-based achievement gaps and progress in closing those gaps.

Indicators in the index can be broken down into three sub-categories: status, change, and equity.

The index provides information on key questions, such as:

• What percentage of 4th and 8th graders are proficient in reading and math?
• How has student achievement changed over time?
• How large are achievement gaps between low-income students and their more affluent peers? Have those gaps narrowed over time?

Status: How Are Students Performing Today?

Measures in the status sub-category evaluate a state’s current performance. The average state earns a C-minus. On the status measures, Massachusetts’ score of 96.2 tops the nation and results in an A. New Mexico records an F and a score of 47.6, the lowest in the nation.

Change: Has State Achievement Improved Over Time?

The change sub-category examines a state’s improvement over time. In this area, the national average is a D-plus. The District of Columbia, the national leader, posts an A and a score of 92.8. Iowa, with a score of 57.0 and a letter grade of F, places last in the nation.

Equity: How Large Are Poverty-Based Achievement Gaps?

In the equity sub-section, states are graded based on achievement gaps between low-income students and their more affluent peers. The nation as a whole receives a B-minus. Oklahoma finishes as the national leader on those poverty-gap measures. Its score stands at 91.8, which corresponds to a grade of A-minus. On the other end of the scale, the District of Columbia receives a 50.0 and an F, the lowest nationally.

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In