This scoping review highlights effective makerspace practices in higher education, emphasizing sustainability and inclusion.
STEAM+ makerspaces have become increasingly prominent in higher education as outlets of creativity, collaboration, and applied learning. An examination of makerspaces across Canadian universities suggests that those designed with a focus on sustainability, equity, inclusion, and accessibility tend to operate more effectively. Using a scoping review approach, this study first examined existing makerspaces in faculties of education through employing interviews and document review to identify effective practices and common challenges. Next, an inventory of available materials was then completed, with attention to aligning resource selection and use with sustainable and inclusive practices. The inventory of available materials was subsequently used to develop makerspace ‘kits’ that could be integrated into classrooms and preservice teacher education. Insights from the review of ten schools, including stakeholder interviews, informed the design of these kits by highlighting the need for low-cost, accessible, and curriculum-relevant resources. Two prototype kits were created: the first, ‘jitterbugs,’ employed off-centered mass and a battery-powered motor to explore concepts of energy transfer, balance, and motion; the second, ‘winged gliders,’ introduced principles of aerodynamics by engaging learners with concepts such as mass, lift, and drag. These kits served as tangible resources for applying STEAM+ approaches in practice, providing preservice teachers and students with accessible, hands-on opportunities to connect theory with experiential learning.By integrating literature review, material evaluation, workshop facilitation, and stakeholder engagement, the project generated practical insights to inform the planning of the Faculty’s makerspace and contributed to emerging scholarship on the role of STEAM+ makerspaces in higher education as sites of creativity, collaboration, and community-responsive educational innovation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nuri Park (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: