Background: One emerging approach to diversity and inclusion in engineering is to take an assets‐based view of what students from nondominant communities bring to their education and work experiences.Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this review is to understand how community cultural wealth (CCW), an assets‐based framework, has been applied in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education research. We address research questions focused on (a) the characteristics of studies using CCW in STEM education, (b) examples of the six types of capital (aspirational, linguistic, familial, navigational, social, and resistant) in STEM educational settings, and (c) gaps and opportunities in how CCW is being applied in STEM education.Design/Method: We identified 33 dissertations, theses, journal articles, and conference papers using systematic review procedures. To qualify, each study must present empirical data and include at least one type of CCW capital in its results or discussion. We coded study characteristics, such as methods, participant populations, and research setting. We qualitatively analyzed each of the six types of CCW capital.Results: Studies tended to focus on higher education settings, engineering, and qualitative methods, particularly student interviews. We identified several specific engineering‐relevant examples of assets for each type of capital. Future work should collect data from faculty, staff, and family members identified in several studies as important to CCW in addition to foregrounding student voices.Conclusions: In synthesizing existing studies, this review provides insight into how an assets‐based framework is being interpreted and provides a foundation for more assets‐based perspectives in future engineering education work.

Background: In recent years, makerspaces have become increasingly common venues of STEM education and are rapidly being incorporated into undergraduate programs. These spaces give students and instructors access to advanced design technology and facilitate the incorporation of a wide variety of projects into the curriculum; however, their impacts on students are not yet fully understood. Using matched survey responses (i.e., repeated measures) from undergraduate students enrolled in engineering courses that assigned a makerspace-based project, we evaluate how the use of a university makerspace impacts students’ attitudes towards design, engineering, and technology. Further, we examine whether there are differences based on students’ year in program, gender, and race.Results: Pairedt-tests were used to analyze whether and how nine factors changed within individual students over one semester. Analyses revealed that students who visited the facility showed significant gains in measures of innovation orientation, design self-efficacy, innovation self-efficacy, technology self-efficacy, belonging to the makerspace, and belonging to the engineering community. Subsequently, repeated measures analyses of variance (RMANOVAs) on the students who visited the makerspace revealed significant main effects of students’ year in program, gender, and race, as well as interactional effects of both year in program and race with time.Conclusions: These results affirm the value of incorporating makerspace-based projects into STEM curricula, especially during early coursework. However, our analyses revealed consistent gender gaps in measures of self-efficacy before and after using the makerspace. Similarly, gains in belonging to the makerspace were not equal across racial groups. We conclude that while makerspaces are fulfilling some of their promise for educating innovative problem solvers, more attention needs to be paid to avoid reproducing disparities in STEM education that are already experienced by female students and racial minorities.

Background: Makerspaces have increased in popularity recently and hold many promises for STEM education. However, they may also fall prey to hegemonic, marginalizing norms and ultimately narrow the definition of making and exclude who counts as makers. Explicitly focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion when examining makerspaces is of utmost urgency and importance for STEM education researchers; one way to foreground equity is through theoretical frameworks that critically examine the structure, environment, participation, and pedagogy within STEM makerspaces.Purpose: Thus, we investigate the following: (1) what are the theoretical frameworks applied and (2) how, if at all, is equity addressed in research exploring STEM makerspaces? In synthesizing prior work, we aim to provide recommendations for using theoretical frameworks in supporting inclusivity in STEM makerspaces.Scope/Method: We conducted a systematic review of articles that examine a STEM makerspace, apply a theoretical framework, and consider diversity, equity, and/or inclusion. We identified n = 34 relevant studies and coded each for basic characteristics.Results: We highlight 10 exemplars that use critical theoretical frameworks as a way to foreground equity in the research design. The authors of these exemplar studies are reflective throughout their research processes and position themselves as learning in tandem with their participants. Further, they take active steps to transfer agency and power to their participants, and in doing so, lift forms of knowing not widely valued in STEM spaces.Conclusions: We conclude with recommendations for educators, makerspace staff, and researchers relevant to expanding dominant conceptions of what counts as making and thereby, supporting inclusivity in STEM makerspaces.

Makerspaces have become an increasingly prevalent supplement to K-16 STEM education, and especially so in undergraduate engineering programs. However, they also fall prey to hegemonic, marginalizing norms common in STEM spaces and, ultimately, the modern making movement has remained a white, male, middle-class pursuit. Despite calls to broaden student participation in makerspaces due to the benefits of participation, there has been no examination of why some students choose not to visit these spaces. We surveyed (n = 151) and interviewed (n = 17) undergraduate STEM students to understand the barriers facing students before and during their initial participation. Using the lens of Social Boundary Spaces, we identified six barriers to successfully crossing the boundary into the makerspace, including: (1) not having enough time, (2) not feeling you have a purpose for visiting, and (3) not knowing how to obtain the proper certifications. Further, students find approaching makerspaces to be intimidating because of (4) the design of the space and (5) the perceived technical skillset of the students there. Notably, non-dominant students face a multitude of (6) barriers corresponding with their social identities. We conclude with recommendations relevant to educators, makerspace administrators, and engineering leadership for alleviating barriers and supporting students’ involvement in STEM makerspaces.

In March of 2020, the world encountered the COVID-19 pivot, an abrupt transition from in-person interactions to a socially distanced world. Within schools of engineering, this pivot meant a switch out of collaborative environments, including academic makerspaces. This research investigates how engineering faculty pivoted their instruction to account for the limited capacity, of an academic makerspace during the COVID-19 pivot. We interviewed four engineering faculty members in the United States who utilise the academic makerspace for a course project. Then, we used a descriptive case study approach to explore their perspectives on their instructional pivots. Using Henderson et al.’s ([2011]. “Facilitating Change in Undergraduate STEM Instructional Practices: An Analytic Review of Literature.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 48 (8): 952–984) theoretical framework of change strategies within undergraduate STEM education, we identify when and how each change strategy was used and discuss themes across the instruction pivots. These pivots provide real-world examples of instructional shifts that instructors implemented to differentiate, and in some cases change, their coursework to support inclusive learning environments.