Make the Maker: A systematic review of Australian Makerspaces
Creators: name: Vanderburg, Michelle
name: Waters, Kim M.
name: Farrelly, Elizabeth
name: Gossner, Michelle
name: Alfrey, Kristie-Lee Rae
Publisher: name: Open Science Framework
Year: 2023
Subjects: subject: Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research
subject: Secondary Education
subject: Teacher Education and Professional Development
subject: Education
subject: Elementary Education
subject: Higher Education
subject: Adult and Continuing Education
subject: Other Education
subject: FOS: Educational sciences
subject: Educational Methods
subject: Australian Makerspace

description: Makerspaces are constructivist hands on learning spaces that facilitate creative design and hands-on learning. Makerspaces usually have an element of curriculum or educational direction to encourage development of relevant technical and personal skills. Such spaces are offered around the world, but there is high variability in name, definition, aim and activities. This systematic review synthesizes research on Australian Makerspaces within Australian education systems (primary schooling, secondary schooling, home/distance schooling, tertiary education), to understand the definitions used, the activities facilitated, the aims of the Makerspaces, and the empirical outcomes resulting from the use of Makerspaces. This systematic review thereby provides clarification on the various types of Makerspaces and associated potential benefits for students. Research Questions  How are Makerspaces defined within Australian Education contexts? o What are ‘Makerspaces’? o Where are Makerspaces located? o What ages or education levels are Makerspaces aimed at?  What activities are offered by Makerspaces within Australian Education contexts? o What learning areas do Makerspaces encompass? o What activities are included? o How are activities facilitated? (e.g., workshop or individual)  What are the aims of Makerspaces? o What are the desired outcomes or skills to be developed? o How are aims measured in the research?  What are the empirical outcomes of Makerspaces? o What are the benefits of Makerspaces? o Are there any limitations to Makerspaces? Study Type Systematic Literature Review Study Design This systematic review will utilise the PRISMA framework (Moher et al., 2009) to consider peer-reviewed Australian Makerspace research. Specifically, the review will seek to understand the definitions of “Makerspace”, the activities offered and aims of the Makerspace setting, and the key empirical outcomes of Makerspace engagements. As there is no primary data being collected directly from humans, this study does not require Human Research Ethics application or approval. Systematic Search In June 2023, systematic searches will be conducted in databases known to commonly include journals relevant to education and makerspace activities: ProQuest (Education Collection); PsycINFO (APA); Web of Science; EBSCO (Academic Search Unlimited); EBSCO (Education Source); EBSCO (ERIC). Search terms will include makerspace* OR “maker space” OR “fab lab” OR fablab* AND Australia*. The source type will be limited to peer-reviewed scholarly and academic journals, and full-text availability with English language. No publication date limiters will be applied. The full search strategy will be uploaded to OSF in due course. The search will be conducted by MG, the full search strategy will be uploaded to OSF in due course, and the PRISMA chart will be published in the resulting systematic review manuscript. Inclusion Criteria As per best practice for systematic reviews (Moher et al., 2009), multiple reviewers (MG, KW, EF &amp; KLA) will independently screen the resultant papers in two phases, via the Covidence systematic review platform. The first phase will be based on article title and abstract and required the paper to be 1) an original research paper with a focus on 2) makerspaces within Australian education contexts (primary, secondary, home and university education). Papers that are considered to meet inclusion criteria by at least three of the four reviewers will be eligible for the subsequent phase of screening (majority rule). The second phase of screening will be based on the full text and again consist of all four reviewers independently reviewing the full text using the same eligibility criteria as phase one. Again, papers will be deemed eligible based on agreement of at least three of the four reviewers (majority rules). Any disagreement or conflict in eligibility screening will be discussed between the four reviews and decided by a fifth reviewer (MV) where required. Data Extraction and Synthesis The citation of each article, the definition of makerspace (including any alternate names, locations of makerspaces [school/university], age or education levels), offered activities (including learning areas and method of activities [workshops/individual]), the aims of the makerspace (skill or personal development aims), and the associated key outcomes and limitations of the makerspace and research will be extracted for analysis and synthesis. All found results will be reported via published manuscript in due course.