The transformations of contemporary society inevitably affect the school ecosystem (Sala et al., 2020). The student population appears increasingly heterogeneous in terms of social and cultural background and communication modes. Space-time coordinates lose their clear boundaries and defined connotations, and knowledge becomes more fragmented and sectoral. These elements of complexity call for a rethinking of traditional didactic patterns to generate learning ecosystems that actively engage students and promote the development of 21st-century skills, which are essential to cope with a school and social context characterized by continuous emergencies (Binkley et al., 2012). 

Maker education has been developing in recent decades consolidating the trend of so-called “authorship learning” (Donaldson & Bucy, 2017), an educational strand in which the student is at the center of a process of creation, manipulation and imagination, whose products are strongly perceived as their own and personalized. Indeed, learners, as makers, actively and experientially construct their own knowledge through hands-on activities that combine manual and digital skills aimed at solving open-ended and everyday life problems and creating physical or digital artifacts (Repetto, 2020). This educational approach, originated in America in the wake of the Maker Movement (Dougherty, 2012), is considered a technological extension of activism, capable of conveying the development of STEAM and 21st-century skills and promoting a strongly “enactive” participatory design process.

Its main exponents believe that it can “disrupt” traditional educational methods (Martinez & Stager, 2013), transforming the way we understand «what counts as learning, as a learner, and as a learning environment» and marking a bold step towards equity in education (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014, p. 503). Alimisis and colleagues (2019) emphasize the possibility of democratizing access to learning by making and skills development opportunities and, more importantly, to foster positive attitudes and openness to the culture of making for future generations of citizens. The Maker Movement challenges educational systems to provide every citizen with opportunities to learn with recent technologies, regardless of their talents or qualifications in scientific fields. 

However, the potential of Maker activities is still not fully exploited. The practical implementation in schools deals with several problems that limit its effectiveness and adequate integration, such as: the rigidity of curricula and other structural and organizational constraints; the inadequate technical and methodological training of in-service and pre-service teachers; the tendency to assume gender stereotypes. Bagattini, Miorri and Operto (2021, p. 252) advance the «glass ceiling» metaphor to allude to the «invisible and transparent barriers that prevent girls from pursuing courses and careers in technical and scientific fields». The gap between males and females in STEM subjects would indeed start as early as the transition between primary and secondary school.

To aspire to effective educational equity, it is thus necessary to avoid the uncritical and non-pedagogically adoption of the Maker approach and the design of predefined pathways, and instead appeal to learners’ individual inclinations and creative/interdisciplinary aspects, enhancing diversity and preventing mechanisms of exclusion (Bevan, 2017; Repetto, 2020).

Based on these needs and theoretical foundations, we developed a research project aimed at outlining a proposal for integrating Maker activities into the curricula of primary and lower secondary schools, answering the following questions: 

• How can Maker education be integrated into the curricular activities of primary and lower secondary schools?

• What impact does it have on students’ perceived school self-efficacy and attitude towards STEM and 21st-century skills?

The project was divided into two parts. The first part (January - June 2021) involved 50 students attending a fourth, a fifth and a multi-grade fourth-fifth class of the C.I. “S. De Magistris” in Caldarola (MC) and three curricular teachers. Then, the second part (November 2021 – April 2022) coincided with the transition of 58% of the students to lower secondary school. This change led to a redefinition of class groups and teaching staff, which, however, did not affect the balance between genders and school grades. The context and sample were limited due to the ongoing Covid-19 health emergency. The project developed according to a multidisciplinary and longitudinal approach, oriented towards laboratory and collaborative practices. It adopted the Design-Based Implementation Research (DBIR) methodology (Fishman et al., 2013), as it is based on a mutually transformative relationship between research and practice, involving teachers as co-designers. We therefore started from the classes’ curricula to define possible integration proposals. We identified three guiding criteria: connecting the activities to the curricular content; working for and on the students’ skills; include the activities in students’ assessment, and some guiding principles: activating students at home through flipped strategies; giving each session the same structure to ensure regularity; proposing authentic tasks and assessment (Gratani, 2021); design pathways inspired by the three principles outlined in Berthoz’s (2009) theory of simplexity (modularity, redundancy, and deviation). In line with the Maker approach, we designed challenges based on devising, planning, building, and solving, to be carried out in pairs or groups of three pupils. We chose the 17 SDG outlined by the UN in the 2030 Agenda as an integrating background theme, selecting them according to possible links with the curricula and students’ interests and life contexts. For the assessment, we selected two validated questionnaires to investigate: students’ attitude towards STEM and 21st-century skills (Q1): adapted and translated version by Screpanti (2020). students’ perceived school self-efficacy (Q2): adapted and translated version by Pastorelli and Picconi (2001). They were administered at the beginning and at the end of the two parts. Alongside the quantitative analysis, we added tools for qualitative analysis to appreciate the many underlying processes activated. These tools were: student logbooks divided into three sessions (introduction, planning, self-assessment); a rubric co-designed with the teachers based on the students’ self-assessment areas; a focus group with teachers carried out between the projects’ two parts.

Rapidly changing socio-cultural contexts highlight both the potential and the need for transformative pedagogy (Yelland & Arvantis, 2018) to generate new ways of teaching and learning that support the increasing diversity of classroom contexts. The project’s design favored the three basic principles of Berthoz’s (2009) theory of simplexity: - modularity: tasks as coherent and connected micro-modules in a networked program to promote recursive recalls; - redundancy: multiple communication channels to foster differentiation of learners’ cognitive styles; - deviation: ongoing adaptations to respond to feedback from practice. Students were able to approach technology to solve authentic challenges building fundamental skills for future citizens (Gratani & Giannandrea, 2022). The main positive outcomes include: increased involvement of students and local communities; democratic nature of the activities; added value of technology to foster inclusion; embodied approach; impact on students’ expressive, emotional and relational skills and manual abilities; facilitated approach to STEM subjects. Specifically, regarding STEM education, data from Q1 reveal overall higher values from female students, proving the need to “eradicate” entrenched stereotypes to support equitable access to studies and technical-scientific professions. In all Q1 administrations, female students show an overall higher attitude than male students towards all investigated areas (except for the post-Part II of the Engineering-Technology area). Teachers also reported a greater inclination towards scientific subjects from female students and a general different approach to STEM fields (particularly mathematics). According to the teachers, the more playful, humanistic and creative context, not experienced as a pure exercise, facilitated the pupils who usually struggle more with traditional mnemonic and executive exercises, reducing their fear of judgment and encouraging them to bring out their knowledge and abilities. Finally, teachers emphasized the opportunity to question their own attitudes towards new technologies and experiment a more flexible and effective planning of daily teaching to meet pupils' diverse needs.

Alimisis, D., Alimisi, R., Loukatos, D., & Zoulias, E. (2019). Introducing Maker Movement in Educational Robotics: Beyond Prefabricated Robots and “Black Boxes”. In L. Daniela (Ed.), Smart Learning with Educational Robotics (pp. 93-115). Cham: Springer. Bagattini, D., Miotti, B., & Operto, F. (2021). Educational Robotics and the Gender Perspective. In D. Scaradozzi, L. Guasti, M. Di Stasio, B. Miotti, A. Monteriù, & P. Blikstein (Eds.), Makers at School, Educational Robotics and Innovative Learning Environments. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 240 (pp. 249-254). Cham: Springer. Berthoz, A. (2009). La Simplexité. Paris: Odile Jacob. Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of making in science education. Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 75-103. Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (Vol. 1, pp. 17–66). Netherlands: Springer. Donaldson, J.P., & Bucy, M. (2017, May). Constructionism and Authorship Learning. AERA Online Paper Repository. Paper presented at the 2017 American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX. Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations, 7(3), 11-14. Fishman, B.J., Penuel, W.R., Allen, A., & Cheng, B.H. (Eds.). (2013). Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 112(2). New York: Teachers College Record. Gratani, F. (2021). Towards Assessment as Learning: Findings from online courses for secondary school teachers. Education Sciences And Society, 432-433. Gratani, F., & Giannandrea, L. (2022) Towards 2030. Enhancing 21st century skills through educational robotics. Frontiers in Education, 7, Halverson, E.R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), pp.495–504. Martinez, S.L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making tinkering and engineering in the classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press. Repetto, M. (2020). La Maker Education come movimento a contrasto della povertà educativa. QTimes – webmagazine, Anno XII - n. 4, 204-213. Sala, A., Punie, Y., Garkov, V., & Cabrera Giraldez, M. (2020). LifeComp: The European Framework for Personal, Social and Learning to Learn Key Competence. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Screpanti, L. (2020). Study, assessment and identification of Educational Robotics experiences at school. PhD dissertation. Ancona: Università Politecnica delle Marche. Yelland, N., & Arvantis, E. (2018). Transformative pedagogies in early childhood education. Global Studies of Childhood, 8(2), 111–113.