Makerspaces are gaining popularity in educational activities in both formal and non-formal learning contexts of all age groups, from primary schools to higher education institutions, in particular through interdisciplinarity.

The interdisciplinary hands-on learning approach favors a learning in makerspaces that stimulates students' creative and thinking skills, thus developing entrepreneurial competence. Experiments have been conducted to explore this relationship; however, they are limited to a particular type of makerspace and address only some aspects of entrepreneurial competence. Through a systematic literature review (SRL), we explore toward understanding and presenting approaches to developing entrepreneurial competence in makerspaces to middle school students.

Middle school is typically the final stage of compulsory education, and entrepreneurial competence should be developed by this point, as it is considered a key competence.

The aim of this literature synthesis is to identify and synthesize approaches to the development of entrepreneurial competences in makerspaces through an in-depth and systematic exploration of the literature. The paper intends to map the current terrain of knowledge in the field, with a particular focus on educational approaches that foster entrepreneurial growth and development in makerspaces as learning spaces. Through this endeavor, the synthesis aims to contribute to the improvement and refinement of pedagogical approaches which make the learning environments having the treats of makerspaces and fostering entrepreneurial competencies.

The research questionthat will guide this analysis is: what are the current approaches for developing entrepreneurial competences in makerspaces as learning spaces?

Several explanatory theories have been proposed to understand the processes involved and the influences on them. Among these we highlight:

Extended activity theory (Mersand, 2021) which argues for moving beyond traditional classroom boundaries by including real-world experiences and actions to develop authentic, applicable skills and knowledge.

The theory of entrepreneurial development (Krueger, 2007) will be used to provide a more detailed picture of how entrepreneurial competences are formed and refined by makerspace members.

Makerspaces have the potential to utilize and develop multiple literacies, such as digital literacy, information literacy and technological literacy, which are also components of entrepreneurial competence. Cervetti et al. (2006), in their theory of multiple literacies, explain how students bring multiple literacies into the learning space and recommend teacher training.

Experiential learning theory emphasizes the importance of practical experiences in the development of entrepreneurial skills (Kolb, 2014).

     The EntreComp theoretical framework, developed by the European Commission (Margherita et al., 2016), presents how entrepreneurial competences derive from three main competence domains and 15 individual competence units.

Entrepreneurship is one of the key competences for achieving sustainable development, but these competences are not sufficiently valued and provided by the traditional education and training system (Hollauf et al., 2020).

Makerspaces, understood as learning spaces facilitate the development of entrepreneurial skills, offering unique opportunities for experiential learning, collaboration and innovation in a realistic and applied context

Recent studies on makerspaces in education explore their evolution, role in creativity, and impact on learning. Yu (2016) provides a historical overview, Soomro et al. (2022) examine creative spaces and creativity, Konstantinou et al. (2021) map research trends, and Rouse & Rouse (2022) review school-based makerspaces in preK-12.

Through this synthesis, we bring new a working definition of the makerspace concept, an inventory of how the development of entrepreneurial skills of secondary school students is carried out in makerspaces, through what types of programs, a list of approaches associated with makerspaces and entrepreneurial skills, and an inventory of programs for developing entrepreneurial skills in makerspaces are derived.

At the same time this systematic literature review aligns with the conference theme by exploring how makerspaces contribute to innovative educational practices, supporting the European agenda for entrepreneurship education.

To ensure a robust theoretical foundation for the literature synthesis, the methodological framework was guided by established principles of systematic reviews and evidence synthesis (Grant & Booth, 2009; Gough et al., 2012; Gough and Thomas, 2016; Alexander, 2020). To conduct this systematic literature review, we followed the instructions in Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Page et al., 2021). The methodological approach adopted in this study is similar to the review methodology used in the study of Rouse & Rouse (2022). Our study differs from recently published research as it addresses the development of entrepreneurial skills in makerspaces as learning spaces, whereas the Rouse & Rouse (2022) study focuses on makerspaces as learning spaces. This distinction allows for a more nuanced understanding of the skills that are developed in makerspaces by highlighting alternative perspectives and contributing to the expansion of knowledge in the field. The search algorithm underlying the identification of studies is: "entrepreneurial* competences*" OR "entrepreneurship* competences*" OR "entrepreneurial skills" OR "entrepreneurship skills" AND "makerspaces as learning environments" OR "maker spaces" OR "innovation labs" OR "creative spaces*" OR "hackerspaces*" OR "fab labs" OR "educational spaces" OR "learning spaces" AND "middle school" OR "secondary education" OR "junior high school" OR "lower secondary school" . We manually searched ducational technology research and development for articles published in the last five years. We chose this journal because makerspaces as learning spaces do not have their own flagship journal, and included articles from our database searches frequently appeared in this journal. Also, as an application of the showball technique, we looked at the references of matched articles to identify other useful references. At the same time, we also checked the specific synthesized literature journals in the Q1 area. 37 studies were selected after following the methodological steps and the inclusion/exclusion criteria and then analyzed in depth. Over 1000 subjects are included in the selected studies. As we could not find a suitable example of coding, we made our own study coding and analysis grid and coded all 37 full-text articles that met our review criteria considering the following: study characteristics (author, institution, year of publication, journal or paper); sample (grade, age); types of skills, formal/nonformal education; methodology; outcome data (type of data collected, description of results); contributions to the field; limitations; future research directions (Lawrence & Mcevoy, 2022). The parallel coding was done by two of the authors.

The research articles included in this review were analyzed to find out the approaches to developing entrepreneurial skills in makerspaces as learning spaces. The themes of the analysis revealed four thematic categories, which we delimited inductively as they were the most frequently invoked themes. The thematic categories comprise the central approaches from which the list of elements associated with makerspaces as learning spaces and entrepreneurial competences emerges. In addition, a working definition of the makerspace concept, an inventory of how the development of entrepreneurial skills of secondary school students is carried out in makerspaces, through what types of programs, a list of approaches associated with makerspaces and entrepreneurial skills, and an inventory of programs for developing entrepreneurial skills in makerspaces are derived. The validated programs and interventions highlighted by the research will be benchmarks for applying tools and interventions in makerspaces as learning spaces to enhance entrepreneurial competences. The first thematic category outlined comprises approaches related to 'identity' reflecting the identity of makerspaces in terms of the type of activity carried out, its purpose and the identity of the people in the makerspace. Two further sub-categories emerge from the identity of individuals: the identity of students and the identity of teachers facilitating a makerspace. The second thematic category is competence. Exploring the literature through this thematic category reveals an inventory of how the development of entrepreneurial skills of secondary school students is realized in makerspaces. The third thematic category is programs. By programs we mean structured initiatives that aim to achieve specific objectives, such as developing skills, promoting innovation, solving social problems, etc. The fourth thematic category is environment. Research has focused on both the characteristics of the social environment and its impact on human interactions in makerspace and the physical environment and its arrangement for developing entrepreneurial competence.

1.Alexander, P. A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 6-23. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543198543 2.Cervetti, G., Damico, J., & Pearson, P. D. (2006). Multiple literacies, new literacies, and teacher education. Theory into practice, 45(4), 378-386. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4504_12 3.Gough, D., Thomas, J. (2016). Systematic reviews of research in education: Aims, myths and multiple methods. Review of Education, 4(1), 84-102. https://doi. 4.Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-28 5.Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. 6.Hollauf, E. M., Hornung-Prähauser, V., Podmetina, D., Unterfrauner, E., & Geser, G. (2020). Making Social Innovators-Novel Innovation Education for Youth in Makerspaces. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x 7.Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT Press. 8.Krueger, N. F. (2007). What lies beneath? The experiential essence of entrepreneurial thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00166.x 9.Lawrence, m., & Mcevoy, B. (2022). The literature review: 6 steps to success. Corwin Press. 10.Margherita, B., Panagiotis, K., Yves, P., & Van Den Brande, L. (2016). EntreComp: The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework. Publication Office of the European Union. 11.Mersand, S. (2021). The state of makerspace research: A review of the literature. TechTrends, 65(2), 174-186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00566-5 12.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 13.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, 100413. doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100413 14.Soomro, S. A., Casakin, H., & Georgiev, G. V. (2022). A systematic review on FabLab environments and creativity: Implications for design. Buildings, 12(6), 804. https://doi. 15. Walan, S., & Brink, H. (2024). 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, 34(3), 1093-1121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09845-7 16. White, B. (2022). Creating a Middle School Makerspace in an International Baccalaureate School 17. Yu, S. (2016). Makerspaces as learning spaces: An historical overview and literature review. University of Alberta. https://doi.org/10.7939/R31T6Q