University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Making them gifted: how elementary makers’ spaces reveal giftedness

(USC Thesis Other)

Making them gifted: how elementary makers’ spaces reveal giftedness

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Making Them Gifted: How Elementary Makers’ Spaces Reveal Giftedness
by
Gary L. Saunders II

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2022

© Copyright by Gary L. Saunders II 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Gary L. Saunders II certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Sandra Kaplan
Patricia Tobey
Anthony Maddox, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
This study explores how upper-grade elementary makers’ spaces reveal creative thinking and
critical thinking in identified and unidentified gifted students. It provides evidence that the
situated learning context of makers’ spaces elicit high-level motivation through constructionist
practices and 21st century learning processes that leads to consistent application of creative
thinking and critical thinking. The mixed-methods study incorporated surveys and interviews of
educators who are invested in maker learning, observations of students during maker sessions,
and analysis of photos, plans, and lesson provided by the educators. The findings indicate
substantial perceived creative thinking in all students, more notably in gifted students who
underperformed unidentified students on existing assessments. I argue that makers’ spaces reveal
multiple categories of giftedness in identified and unidentified gifted students, and that maker
learning is an effective learning method for supporting at-risk students to provide life-skills and
innovation opportunities for underserved populations. I propose a new identification category of
giftedness, entrepreneurially gifted, which is revealed through making and the concept of maker
confidence. I recommend that school and district policy implement makers’ spaces and maker
learning to prepare students to be college, career, and entrepreneurial-ready.
Keywords: making, makers’ spaces, giftedness, creative thinking, critical thinking,
motivation, 21st century skills, constructionism, entrepreneurially gifted, innovation, maker
learning

v
Dedication
To my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to whom, whatever good comes out of this effort, is due all
glory for sustaining me by His righteous right hand.

To my hillbilly father who sacrificed so much to be there for me, and who inspired to
demonstrate that an Appalachian can attain scholarliness. Montani semper liberi!

To my mother who has always been there for me and encouraged and emboldened me to excel
still more.

To my wonderful siblings John, Michael, and Michelle for their encouragement and friendship.

To my beautiful children Charisa, Gary, Conner, Calista, and Taylor, who have blessed
unimaginably.

To my beautiful, courageous wife, who has been a parent on steroids over this time and who
gave me the encouragement to enter into this adventure. You are the epitome of grace and
biblical womanhood. I could not have completed this dissertation without your support. I love
you.

To God be the glory.

vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Anthony Maddox, my dissertation chair. Your weekly (and
sometimes more often) phone conversations pushed my thinking to recognize that this work is
important and needs to be heard. I am eternally grateful to you and pray that our partnership and
friendship continues beyond the dissertation. There cannot be a more dedicated partner-chair in
the history of dissertation chairs than you, Dr. Maddox. You taught me to be steadfast and
courageous about what is right.
Immense thank yous to my two committee members Patricia Tobey and Sandra Kaplan.
Dr. Tobey your commitment to clarity and your unending encouragement meant so much to my
insights and growth as a scholar. You truly give your heart away to recipients like me, and it has
been a joy. Dr. Kaplan you have been a mentor from afar for decades. You are the reason I was
motivated to attend USC’s doctorate program, and it was the thrill of a lifetime to sit in the same
room as you and learn curriculum and the importance of creative thinking. You have made me a
better educator, a leader, and a passionate advocate for the gifted.
Evelyn Castillo and Christopher Mattson in the Doctoral Support Center have been an
unimaginable encouragers and refiners through this process. Thank you for the (tough) love and
support that you have given me to push me toward clarity and structure. Without your one-on-
one support, Google Classroom, and the Weekend Writes, I could not have made it. Thank you,
Julie Slayton, for always being available to provide feedback and constructive advice. You
possess the perfect balance of gentleness and the drive to push me toward excellence. Critical
thinking is your middle name.
Thank you to my amazing peers in our small but mighty TEMS concentration.
Dieuwertje (DJ) and Shirleen thank you for being there to encourage me on long after you

vii
finished and hung your doctorate on your walls. Your messages have been wonderful acts of
kindness. Immense thanks to Guadalupe Montano an amazing editor. You have a once in a
lifetime skill set. I am beyond grateful for your expertise. Thank you to the amazing educators
who participated in this study. I am in awe of the maker educators that you are! Fight on!

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiv
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xvi
Chapter One: Background and Overview of the Study .................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 7
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... 10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 17
Construct Description of the 21st Century Learner .......................................................... 18
Critical Thinking ............................................................................................................... 19
Creativity ........................................................................................................................... 24
Making .............................................................................................................................. 28
Constructivism .................................................................................................................. 33
Constructionism ................................................................................................................ 40
Cognitive Theory Principles ............................................................................................. 42
An Approach That Combines the Benefits of These Theories: Maker Mindset ............... 52
The Gifted Learner ............................................................................................................ 53
Gifted Learner as an At-Risk Group ................................................................................. 56
Organizational Change as the Catalyst for a Maker Setting ............................................. 64
ADKAR Model ................................................................................................................. 68
Project Management ......................................................................................................... 72

ix
Conceptual Framework: Maker Confidence ..................................................................... 73
Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 75
Chapter Three: Method ................................................................................................................. 78
Assessments and Measures ............................................................................................... 79
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 81
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 82
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 84
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 85
Challenges and Limitations ............................................................................................... 90
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 91
Determination of Results .................................................................................................. 95
RQ1: How Does an Elementary Makers’ Space Reveal the Creative Thinking and
Critical Thinking Skills of Upper-Grade Elementary Students? ...................................... 97
Critical Thinking ............................................................................................................. 115
Educator Moves .............................................................................................................. 133
RQ2: Is There a Difference in an Elementary Makers’ Space’s Impact on the
Creative Thinking Skills and the Critical Thinking Skills Between Unidentified
and Identified Gifted Students? ...................................................................................... 138
Gifted: Critical Thinking ................................................................................................. 165
Constructionism and the Design Thinking Process ........................................................ 193
Constructionism and the Design Thinking Process Summary ........................................ 197
RQ3: What Is It About an Elementary Makers’ Space, Particularly Motivation,
That Contributes to the Development of Critical Thinking and Creative Thinking
Outcomes? ....................................................................................................................... 198
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 238
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 239
Chapter Five: Findings ................................................................................................................ 242

x
Goals of the Study ........................................................................................................... 244
Entrepreneurially Gifted ................................................................................................. 245
Organizational Factors .................................................................................................... 248
Implications for Policy and Practice ............................................................................... 253
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 261
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 263
References ................................................................................................................................... 267
Appendix B: Educators Survey Questions .................................................................................. 312
Appendix C: Interview Questions ............................................................................................... 323
Appendix D: Observation Descriptor and Protocol .................................................................... 325
Appendix E: Tables ..................................................................................................................... 332
Appendix F: Codebook ............................................................................................................... 354
Appendix G: Observation Descriptions ...................................................................................... 369
Appendix H: Torrance Test of Creative Thinking Manual ......................................................... 373
Appendix I: Educators Artifacts and Photos ............................................................................... 379
Appendix J: Lesson Plans ........................................................................................................... 396
Appendix K: Description of Maker Materials and Tool Carts ................................................... 402
Appendix L: analysis and Diagrams of Makers’ Spaces ............................................................ 405
Appendix M: Test of Critical Thinking Manual ......................................................................... 415
Appendix N: Student Groupings ................................................................................................. 417
Appendix O: The Maker Mindset ............................................................................................... 420
Appendix P: Background to the Study ........................................................................................ 423
Dictated Notes From January 15, 2018 ........................................................................... 427

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Definitions That Emphasize Specific IQ/Ability Test Score as a Criterion for
Identification as a Gifted Underachiever 59
Table 2: Overexcitabilities (OE) 60
Table 3: Creativity Observation Scores by Subcomponent and Total Compiled Score Based on
the Shively et al. (2018) Rubric 100
Table 4: Educator Survey of Students’ Overall CreaT in the Maker Lab Comparison by Educator
Role 101
Table 5 Educators Survey Responses by Critical Thinking Subcomponent and by Role With
Mean and Standard Deviation for All Students 117
Table 6: Educator Survey of Students’ Overall Critical Thinking in the Maker Lab Comparison
by Educator Role 120
Table 7: Critical Thinking Observation Scores by Subcomponent, Corresponding Survey Code,
and Total Compiled Score Based on the Shively et al. (2018) Rubric (N = 11) 120
Table 8: Educators Expertise With GATE Students 143
Table 9: Teacher Creativity Survey Comparative Responses by Subcomponent With Mean and
Standard Deviation for Unidentified and GATE Students 144
Table 10: Creativity Observation Scores by Subcomponent and Total Compiled Score of
Unidentified Students Based on the Shively et al. (2018) Rubric (N = 3) 146
Table 11: Creativity Observation Scores by Subcomponent and Total Compiled Score for GATE
Students Based on the Shively et al. (2018) Rubric (N = 7) 147
Table 12: Overall Educators Survey (Teachers Only) Perception of Students That Exhibit CreaT
in the Maker Lab Unidentified GATE (N = 7)/GATE (N = 11) Comparison 151
Table 13: Critical Thinking Observation Scores for Unidentified and GATE Students by
Subcomponent, Corresponding Survey Code, and Total Compiled Score Based on the
Shively et al. (2018) Rubric; Unidentified (N = 3), GATE (N = 7) 167
Table 14: Teacher Critical Thinking Survey Comparative Responses by Subcomponent With
Mean and Standard Deviation for Unidentified and GATE Students 168
Table 15: Overall Educators Survey Perception of Students That Exhibit CT in the Maker Lab
Unidentified (N = 7)/GATE (N = 13) Comparison 170
Table 16: Teacher Survey on the Motivation Comparative Responses by Subcomponent With
Mean and Standard Deviation for Unidentified and GATE Students 191

xii
Table 17: The Concepts and Their Elements That Impacted the Thinking Skills as Evidence in
Constructionist Pedagogy and the Design Thinking Process 196
Table 18: The Factors and Subfactors of the Design Thinking Process in Makers’ Spaces That
Had an Impact on Creative Thinking and Critical Thinking 197
Table 19: Educators Survey Responses by Motivation Subcomponent and by Role With Mean
and Standard Deviation for All Students 201
Table 20: Educator Survey of Students’ Overall Motivation in the Maker Lab Comparison by
Educator Role 202
Table D1: Indicators of Motivation Journal 327
Table D2: Observation Rubric for Creativity 328
Table D3: Observation Rubric for Critical Thinking 330
Table E1: Interview Participants’ Elementary Experience and Demographics 332
Table E2: Educators’ Level of Importance of Makers’ Spaces by Unidentified/GATE Classroom
Makeup and Socioeconomic Status 333
Table E3: Anvil’s Comparison of the Beginning-of-the-Year Assessments on CreaT to End-of-
the-Year Educator’s Survey of CreaT for All Student Groups 334
Table E4: Benchmark Key to Table E3, Table E5, Table E9, Table E10, Table 11 and Table 12
335
Table E5: Anvil’s Comparison of the Beginning-of-the-Year Assessments on CT to End-of-the-
Year Educator’s Survey of CT (All Students) 336
Table E6: Educators Survey Responses by Creativity Subcomponent and by Role With Mean
and Standard Deviation for All Students 337
Table E7: Educators Survey Responses of Creativity Strengths by Subcomponent With Mean
and Standard Deviation for All Students 338
Table E8: Educator Moves As CreaT, CT and Motivation Impact Strategies That Emerged From
the Maker Learning Data 339
Table E9: Anvil’s Comparison of the Beginning-of-the-Year Assessments on CreaT to End-of-
the-Year Educator’s Survey of CreatT (Unidentified GATE Students) 346
Table E10: Anvil’s Comparison of the Beginning-of-the-Year Assessments on CT to End-of-the-
Year Educator’s Survey of CT for Unidentified Students 347
Table E11: Anvil’s Comparison of the Beginning-of-the-Year Assessments on CreaT to End-of-
the-Year Educator’s Survey of CreaT for GATE Students 348

xiii
Table E12: Anvil’s Comparison of Beginning-of-the-Year Assessments on CT to End-of-the-
Year Educator’s Survey of CT (GATE Students) 349
Table E13: Educators’ Perceptions of Motivation in the Maker Lab by School 350
Table E14: Traits of Entrepreneurially Gifted Individuals and Their Relationship to Maker
Learning 351
Table F1: Codes and Descriptions 354
Table H1: TTCT Norm-Referenced Figural Subcomponents 374
Table H2: TTCT Norm-Referenced Figural Subcomponents 375
Table H3: TTCT Criterion-Referenced Figural Subcomponents 377
Table I1: Document From Edger: Makers’ Space Task Foci and Scope and Sequence Schedule
384
Table I2: Anvil’s Maker Schedule 387
Table J1: A Description of Maker Lessons That Were Observed for Observational Data 396
Table M1: Assessed Subcomponents of Critical Thinking 415

xiv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Self-Efficacy 44
Figure 2: Self-Regulation as the Catalyst for CT 50
Figure 3: Concept of Maker Learning 94
Figure 4: Creativity Conceptualized by Subcomponents 98
Figure 5: Spider 107
Figure 6: Pyramid 1 108
Figure 7: Design Thinking Process 111
Figure 8: Critical Thinking Conceptualized by Subcomponents 116
Figure 9: Critical Thinking and Creative Thinking by Educator Role 134
Figure 10: Cactus 162
Figure 11: Center Materials Cart 163
Figure 12: Edger’s Design Thinking Process and Depth and Complexity Icons 164
Figure 13: Cardboard Constructions 188
Figure 14: Sonoran Biome 191
Figure 15: Overall Educators Survey Perception of Students Who Exhibit CT, CreaT, and
Motivation in the Maker Lab Unidentified (N = 7)/GATE (N = 13) Comparison 192
Figure 16: Motivation Conceptualization of Subcomponents 199
Figure 17: Motivation Bar Graph 203
Figure 18: Maker Partnership 215
Figure 19: Maker Chat: Multiple Levels 216
Figure 20: Maker Mindset 219
Figure 21: Product Development 234
Figure 22: Maker Confidence 237
Figure 23: Overall Constructs 241

xv
Figure 24: Effective Grouping of Teams in a Makers’ Space 241
Figure 25: Entrepreneurially Gifted 246
Appendix A: Mixed-Methods Diagram 311
Figure D1: Model Makers’ Space Layout 325
Figure I1: Jamestown Construction From Edger 379
Figure I2: Longhouse Construction From Edger 380
Figure I3: Cube Pyramid Construction From Bevel 380
Figure I4: Edger’s Sonoran Desert 3D Cactus 381
Figure I5: Football Game Construction from Fastener 381
Figure I6: Anvil Makers’ 30-Second Timer Challenge and City Power Grid Challenge 382
Figure I7: Skee-Ball Arcade Game From Fastener 383
Figure L4: Bevel’s Table Setup and Student Movement Pathways 410

xvi

List of Abbreviations
CreaT Creative Thinking

CT Critical Thinking

OE Overexcitability

PBL Project-Based Learning

PoV Point of View

RQ Research Question

SD Standard Deviation

1

Chapter One: Background and Overview of the Study
This study is a response to the impetus expected of educators to prepare students to
possess the flexibility to respond to a fluid job and business climate in a 21st century work and
entrepreneurial environment. Students at this age will need to develop thinking skills to adapt to
the unknowns of future opportunities. To focus the study, the following guiding questions will
identify the persons to be studied and the context of the learning. What thinking skills will best
prepare future adults for a job and business market in constant flux? Is there an at-risk group that
will overcome the statistics stacked against them to make the most significant positive impact on
a future society? Can a mode of learning outside the traditional industrial curriculum, instruction,
and learning model impact those thinking skills? What will be the process for that learning mode
to come to fruition in an elementary school environment? Is that process duplicable and
sustainable? How can the growth of thinking skills be measured?
We live in the 21st century, so students need to learn 21st century skills. These skills are
customarily identified as the 4Cs: critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and communication.
Innovative learning environments might promote these skills among students who may not
otherwise have opportunities to develop them. In turn, these students significantly impact our
future society. Creating such a learning space requires a process for fruition against the backdrop
of an entrenched, traditional K–12 learning mindset that focuses primarily on intervention and
remediation. Finally, accountability will require quantitative and qualitative data to determine if
that space achieves its intended goal of impactful learning for elementary students.
A national team of K–12 education experts, business communities, higher education, and
policymakers recently formulated the Common Core State Standards for K–12 educational
institutions across the nation. These governing bodies promote the standards to be more rigorous
2

than prior ones (Perdue, 2009). However, to succeed, students need to develop 21st century
learning skills of critical thinking (CT), creative thinking and problem-solving (CreaT),
communication, and collaboration. The focus of this study is on CT and CreaT. Torrance (1962b,
p. 16) defined CreaT as “the process of sensing gaps or disturbing, missing elements; forming
ideas or hypotheses concerning them; testing these hypotheses; and communicating the results,
possibly modifying and retesting the hypotheses.” CT is defined as a complex skill made up of
calculated, self-managing judgment, resulting in problem-solving accomplished through inquiry,
interpretation, appraisal, reasoning, inference, and then an elaboration on what that judgment is
based (Abrami et al., 2015; Gelder, 2005).
The California Assessment of School Performance and Progress assesses mastery of the
standards through the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, which has CT embedded
within it (Herman & Linn, 2013). The need for accountability stems from the problem that the
United States has lost ground to international communities in academic excellence, precisely CT
skills as measured by international assessments (Martin et al., 2016; OECD, 2019). The current
California content standards do not specifically require instruction in CT; however, reasoning
and CT are embedded in instructional and criteria practices, habits of mind, and summative
assessments. CT skills “help us develop a social awareness allowing us to become better citizens,
driven by better-substantiated beliefs, and protect us against the manipulation mechanisms” and
at any age can be developed to complement and increase CreaT (Matei, 2018, p. 41).
Statement of the Problem
Whole child development requires growth in individuals’ CT and CreaT. There is a need
for teachers and schools to be supported to take innovation and design learning to the next step
of full integration in classrooms and across content areas. Students have more access to facts and
3

information than ever before, but, without CT and CreaT, they will not understand what this
knowledge means nor how to effectively utilize it. This study addresses the problem of providing
effective pedagogical and curriculum support to creatively and intellectually gifted upper
elementary (ages 8–11) students in the United States who may or may not have been identified in
the school system.
Giftedness has been identified quantitatively through testing measurements such as the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children and qualitatively through observation of traits and
characteristics that explore or explain the quantitative measure (Roeper, 2012; Silverman, 2009).
Intellectually gifted children are
identified by professionals and qualified persons who by virtue of outstanding abilities,
are capable of high performance. ... It can be assumed that utilization of these criteria for
identification of the gifted and talented will encompass a minimum of 3–5% of the school
population. (Marland, 1971, p. ix)
The Columbus Group (1991) defined giftedness as both cognitive and
internally/emotionally intense, signified by asynchronous development in which advanced
cognitive abilities and heightened intensity combine to create inner experiences and awareness
that are qualitatively different from the norm. Jacob Javits defines gifted students as
students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas
such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic
fields, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school to fully
develop those capabilities. (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015, p. 1539)
Gagné (1997) defines giftedness as a desirable, enduring attribute of outstanding or
exceptional intellectual, physical, creative, and socio-affective (leadership, empathy, self-
4

awareness) talent and aptitude, which is progressively non-normative in the general population.
The typical Intelligence Quotient (IQ) range obtained from intelligence test aligns a range of 120
to 140, 90 to 99.5 percentile, as gifted and 140+, 99.5 to 99.9 percentile, as highly gifted.
Renzulli (2012) uses the term gifted as a modifier of a program, behavior, or a disciplinarian,
rather than a person or a group. He terms the “The Three Ring Conception of Giftedness”
incorporates “above average ability, task commitment, and creativity” (Renzulli, 2012, p. 153) in
which giftedness is not fixed, but can be developed. In his theory, general ability and specific
performance areas remain constant aptitudes whereas task commitment and creativity are
actualizers of ability that can be developed.
Martha Morelock (1996) focused on a definition of giftedness stemming from
Vygotskian theory: advanced cognitive ability that interrelates to one’s social, emotional,
intellectual abilities as well as to the overexcitabilities (Dąbrowski, 1966). Morelock’s definition
of giftedness recognized the gifted as one with special needs due to an asynchronous, lifelong
process of ontogenesis, atypical development as compared to the general population's abilities at
internal awareness, perceptions, and emotional responses and externally in relation to cultural
expectations (Morelock, 1992, 1996, 1997).
The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) defined giftedness as referring to students,
children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual,
creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services or
activities not ordinarily provided by the school to fully develop those capabilities (p. 544).
The evidence highlights that there is not a globally, agreed-upon approach to meeting
gifted students’ needs (Delisle, 2015). This is a problem because there are significant
impediments affecting teachers’ ability to meet these students’ needs (VanTassel-Baska &
5

Stambaugh, 2005). The result in schools has been a combination of inadequate pedagogy and
unmet social-emotional needs, resulting in underachievement (Landis & Reschly, 2013). The
uniqueness of the gifted renders them particularly vulnerable and requires modifications in
parenting, teaching, and counseling for them to develop optimally. For the gifted, both their
intellectual and socio-emotional needs must be considered. Gifted students’ socio-emotional
needs are often referred to in the context of five overexcitabilities (OEs), or intensities:
psychomotor, sensual, intellectual, imaginative, and emotional.
The inability of schools in the United States to effectively identify and then support gifted
students from all backgrounds, needs, and areas of giftedness has created an at-risk population of
students in need of effective intervention (Seeley, 2004; Silverman & Gilman, 2020). Identifying
underachieving gifted students as at-risk in early elementary school will help ensure they receive
intervention in gifted programs and the support they need. Seeley (2004) found that, of 2000
middle school children who tested in the upper quartile of intellectual ability, 37% averaged C or
worse in their grades. Although these students can be considered underachievers, Seeley believes
educational systems need to identify them as at-risk, as evidenced by the fact that that over half
of them drop out of school.
Neglecting underserved gifted populations depletes the resources for crucial long-term
national needs around science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Wai and Worrell
(2016) found that gifted education policy neglects millions of low socioeconomic status (SES)
gifted students because school assessments focus on mathematical ability and verbal reasoning
while ignoring spatial reasoning. The researchers found that assessments that identify spatial
reasoning are more equitable because verbal and math scores are typically enhanced by
advantages afforded to students of higher SES.
6

Educational policy regarding underachieving gifted students has approached a crisis that
threatens to hamper our nation’s advancement as a high-level workforce and eventually
negatively impact tax revenue as well as the gross domestic product (Maker, 1996; Rumberger &
Lim, 2008; Wai & Worrell, 2016). Gifted and talented students’ underachievement is an equity
issue that needs to be remedied. There has been a decline in 21st century upper elementary gifted
students’ CreaT and CT skills due to an emphasis on standardized testing (Kim, 2011b). The lack
of a well-proven pedagogy or curriculum founded in logic, reasoning, and CT development has
pushed our society into an unstable situation in which truth and the determination between right
and wrong are rarely ascertained.
CT aptitude increases among students who demonstrate success on curriculum-based
assessments as well as those who are both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated to increase
CT skills. CreaT is the force behind moving ideas out of the mundane and repetitive to produce
and design ideas, products, and inventions to improve lives. CT and problem-based learning
(PBL) can be implemented in the classroom so that curricular content can transfer to students’
social lives to improve a democratic society (Zuryanty et al., 2019). Science education embeds
CT and decision-making to promote this improvement. If logic is integrated into the instructional
process in our educational systems, individuals will contribute to a more efficient and productive
society.
Handley et al. (2011) found that intentional, systematic instruction in logic will result in a
college- and career-bound population that can reason effectively and, therefore, contribute
productively to society. Rinella et al. (2001) found that purposeful logic instruction significantly
increased students’ abilities in the areas of mathematical logic and the psychology of untrained
reasoning. Moreover, the higher the students performed on the pretest in the course, the more
7

significant the gain in score on the post-test. Since pedagogical instruction in logic increases the
ability to reason efficiently, and since society is better off with individuals who can reason
effectively, there is a moral imperative to include CreaT and CT instruction in the K–12 setting.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to identify the factors that shape the development of an
elementary makers’ space designed to achieve and promote 21st century learning, specifically
the thinking skills of CT and CreaT. It explored the posit that making is transformative education
that will help put more designers, engineers, scientists, and production workers into our
country’s economy (Hatch, 2014, p. 21). The process, its development, and observations of
student learning were journaled. Open-ended questions were asked of educators to gather
descriptive qualitative and quantitative data on CT, CreaT, and motivation. An examination of
correlation sought to determine if the makers’ space intervention correlated to increased learning
based on human cognitive theory (Kirschner et al., 2006b). Part of the phenomenon this study
sought to observe is the intersections and distinctions among the causes and results of learning,
CT, and CreaT. This study was guided by the following three research questions:
1. How does an elementary makers’ space reveal the creative thinking and critical thinking
skills of upper-grade elementary students?
2. Is there a difference in an elementary makers’ space’s impact on the creative thinking
skills and the critical thinking skills between unidentified and identified gifted students?
3. What is it about an elementary makers’ space, particularly motivation, that contributes to
the development of critical thinking and creative thinking outcomes?
Innovation theory, constructivist theory, organizational change theory, and growth
mindset provide a lens for a conceptual framework of this study. The explanatory, mixed-
8

methods approach of the study centered around the context in a unique setting for both general
education and gifted students. The setting, a makers’ space, promotes CT and CreaT in a
synthesis of guided instruction and discovery, project-based learning (PBL) wherein students
create, make, and, in turn, become up-and-coming innovators that benefit society. Makers’
spaces in schools serve as an avenue of hope for the up-and-coming innovators and makers of the
world. Makers’ spaces’ hands-on aspect promotes the transfer of learning, global citizenship,
innovativeness, perseverance, creativity, and resilience for students to become producers of
technology (Hughes et al., 2019). They inspire the conversation and communication necessary to
build a democratic, functioning society (Seymour, 2018). Through a unique approach to learning,
they promote future 21st century needs by developing self-concept and agency that is inclusive
of all scholars (Greene et al., 2019; Seymour, 2018).
Assessments are a part of accountability benchmarking. However, primary accountability
will be to the vision and mission of the school or district. I worked with six organizations, Anvil,
Bevel, Chisel, Driller, Edger, and Fastener Elementary schools, all pseudonyms. Anvil was an
independent school in Southern California with a makers’ space, a lab facilitator and supporting
labs including an arts lab and a robotics lab. Its students were primarily higher socioeconomic
status; however, scholarships are awarded to assist families in need to be able to attend.
Approximately a third of its students qualified as gifted. Bevel was a public school in Southern
California with a makers’ space, a supporting arts lab, robotics lab, and music lab. Bevel was the
only school that was teacher led without the support of a lab facilitator. Most of the students at
Bevel were low-SES and the identified population of gifted students was approximately 1%.
Chisel was a public school in Southern California with a makers’ space supported by a lab
facilitator and a science/technology/engineering/arts/math (STEAM) lab. More than half of its
9

students were identified gifted and the participants in the study represented classrooms that were
primarily gifted. Less than 25% of its students were low-SES. Driller was an independent school
in Southern California with a makers’ space and two lab facilitators who supported the makers’
space and the arts lab. The students were from primarily upper SES families, however, the school
provided scholarships for families of low SES to be able to enroll. At least a third of its students
qualified for gifted identification. Edger was a public school in the metropolitan Phoenix area of
Arizona. The school required gifted identification for students to enroll. It had a makers’ space,
and it was an open classroom environment in which there was fluidity between the educators to
work across each other’s classroom. It was supported by a lab facilitator. Fastener was a para
school organization that worked with multiple schools to either support the site makers’ spaces
with a teacher or lab facilitator, or they brought the maker carts, kits, and tasks into school site
classrooms and into virtual learning. They worked with a balanced mix of low- and high-SES
students at sites that also typically had another supporting lab such as a computer lab.
Approximately 5% to 20% of its students were identified gifted. Elements from vision and
mission statements of participating schools included safe collaboration in an innovation
environment to achieve excellence and technological expertise along with deeply learning that
inspires and empowers students resulting in academic excellence and whole child development.
The leaders of these organizations believe that their makers’ spaces are an important component
of attaining that vision and mission.
The importance of the study lies in the belief that other educational institutions will
benefit from learning about creating a successful elementary makers’ space. Makers’ spaces have
expanded beyond the United States and provide an opportunity to extend economic, political,
and sociocultural contexts that strengthen national interests through the maker movement in
10

education (Irie et al., 2019). There are very few published empirical studies representing the
impact that a Southern California elementary makers’ space has on CT and CreaT. This study
contributes to the research on CT and CreaT development in an elementary setting. It contributes
to the ambition of schools who wish to develop makers’ spaces. This study will become a venue
for other elementary schools looking to increase innovation and 21st century learning.
Definition of Terms
Constructionism: Constructionism stems from a sociocultural episteme that the style in
which individuals think affects their construction of knowledge in contextualized, shared
authentic ways. It suggests that the best way to ensure that such intellectual structures form is
through the active construction of something outside of one's head that is tangible and shareable
with an emphasis on building, crafting, making, and doing (Maxwell, 2006; Papert & Harel,
1991; Stager, 2005). It envelopes the philosophy of constructivism which is an epistemological
view of knowledge based on work in psychology, philosophy, science, and biology that argues
knowledge is derived in a meaning-making process through which learners construct individual
interpretations of their experiences and, thus, construct meaning in their minds. It includes
discovery learning, minimal teacher guidance active, physical, social learning, and facilitation. It
is the construction of knowledge not as truths to be transmitted or discovered, but as emergent,
developmental, nonobjective, and resulting from discovering and engaging with material (Brown
et al., 1996; Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Fosnot, 2013; Fosnot & Perry 1996; Krahenbuhl, 2016;
Schrader, 2015).
Content and Technique Mastery: In makers’ spaces this represents the way in which
domain and disciplinary content is transferred from other learning spaces through the process of
making. Since constructionism is the way that knowledge is transferred and built. Content
11

mastery occurs as students master a variety of construction techniques and make decisions about
putting them to use to convert their design ideas into products, prototypes, and constructions that
demonstrate their knowledge through making.
Creative Thinking (CreaT): The interaction among imagination, cognitive presence,
innovation, volition, aptitude, process, domain engagement, and environment by which
individuals follow the creative process to produce a novel product did not exist before in this
form and is useful as defined within a personal or social context. It is originality times
appropriateness where context establishes the criteria for what counts as original and task-
appropriate. It includes fluency (quantity of ideas), flexibility (different types of ideas),
elaboration (building upon ideas), and originality (uniqueness of ideas). It is a process of
becoming sensitive to problems, deficiencies, gaps in knowledge, and missing elements to
identify a difficulty, search for solutions, make guesses, or formulate hypotheses about
deficiencies (Cadle, 2015; Guilford, 1950; Helfand et al., 2016; Hennessey & Amabile, 2010;
Kaufman, 2021; Los Angeles Unified School District, 2016; Runco & Jaeger, 2012; Simonton,
2012; Stein, 1953; Torrance, 2008; Weston, 2010).
Critical Thinking (CT): CT involves purposeful and goal-directed cognitive and
metacognitive processes. It is a complex skill made up of calculated, disciplined, judgment
generated by observation, reflection, and reasoning, resulting in conceptualization, problem-
solving, and self-managing judgment that is accomplished through inquiry, interpretation,
reasoning, and inference. CT makes sense of the world by carefully examining the thinking
posited by self and others to clarify and improve one’s understanding, increasing the likelihood
of positive decision-making (Abrami et al., 2015; Bracken et al., 2003; Chaffee, 2019; Ennis,
12

2018; Gelder, 2005; Halpern, 1998; Petress, 2004; Scriven & Paul, 1987; The Foundation for
Critical Thinking, n.d.; Tice, 1999; Zuryanty et al., 2019).
Educator Moves: These are the choices and actions taken by educators to coach and
facilitate learning in the makers’ spaces. The moves include research-based strategies and
practices based on learning theory.
Entrepreneurially Gifted: Talented individuals who have succeeded in business by
creating new ventures (fulfilled entrepreneurial giftedness) with at least a minimal financial
reward or who demonstrates an exceptional potential ability to succeed (prospective
entrepreneurial giftedness) (Shavinina, 2008). It is defined as polymathy, multiple giftedness,
with the ability to transfer knowledge and skill to specialize in multiple domains fostered by a
creative giftedness foundation (Shavinina, 2013). At its highest level is the self-directed learner,
and hence highly entrepreneurially gifted, whose self-leading ability correlates as a mediator
between higher levels of CreaT and entrepreneurial giftedness (Baek et al., 2018; Park et al.,
2018). Entrepreneurially gifted makers exhibit maker confidence, systems thinking, high
cognitive and metacognitive processing, and a marketing mindset as evidenced through
innovative products, prototypes, marketing strategies, inventions, and design plans.
Gifted: One with special needs due to asynchronous development in which advanced
cognitive abilities or talents, and heightened intensity combine to create inner experiences and
awareness, or OEs, that are qualitatively different from the norm. This asynchrony increases with
higher intellectual capacity. These students give evidence of high capability in certain areas or
academic fields and need services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school to fully
develop those capabilities (Columbus Group, 1991; Gagné, 1997; Marland, 1971; Morelock,
1992, 1996; No Child Left Behind, 2001; United States Department of Education, 2015).
13

Grounded Theory: This is a qualitative strategy in which the researcher derives a general,
abstract theory of a process, action, or interaction grounded in the views of participants in a study
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Learning (human cognitive theory): A process that causes a change in long-term memory
affected by motivation, zone of proximal development, focus, organization, and elaboration
(Kirschner et al., 2006b; Mayer, 2011; Vygotsky, 1978).
Making: A way of learning that incorporates the pedagogy of constructionism and guided
play (tinkering) in which individuals work within a problem space to make things both digitally
and physically. It infuses elements of design, engineering, computer science, construction,
student choice. It is domain-general and provides application of authentic learning in the content
areas. It includes deconstructing, crafting, and building using tools and materials through
technique- and skill-building. One who makes is a maker (Marotta, 2021; Martin, 2015; Whelan,
2018).
Maker Confidence: The confidence that evolves out of the results of the process of
successful making. It is influenced by motivational components such as self-efficacy/beliefs,
agency, executive function, and self-regulation. Contributing factors that build maker confidence
are the result of the maker process that boosts 21st century skills, maker mindset, the design
thinking process, content and technique mastery, and the ability to incorporate empathy to design
a product or construction for an end-user—the customer.
Maker Learning: A philosophy and method of learning in the context of a makers’ space
lab or mobile cart. Students innovate and incubate ideas, often in teams, through guided
coaching, inquiry-based problem-solving to design and build end-user driven products or
prototypes that demonstrate content mastery and skills. It builds on the work of Jean Piaget
14

(constructivism) and Seymour Papert (constructionism). Maker learning develops skills and
knowledge through interactive, open-ended, student-centered, interdisciplinary experiences that
allow for the time and space needed to develop diverse skills, knowledge, and ways of thinking.
Learners innovate, design, and create projects that align the content of learning through hands-on
application. “Maker education isn’t about the stuff we can make, it’s about the connections,
community and the meaning we can make, and who holds the power to decide what our futures
hold” (Maker Ed, n.d., para. 2).
Maker Mindset: Learners frequently tinker and risk failure to learn and innovate. Through
this mindset, the goal of learning is not simply the accumulation of bits of knowledge, but the
understanding, use, and application of knowledge so that learning becomes connected to life
inside and outside of school, both for the present and the future (Brake, 2012; Dougherty, 2012;
Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017; Roberson & Woody, 2012).
Makers’ space: A space where students encounter liberating discovery and inquiry as
instructional tools applied through a constructionist philosophy, where problem-solving methods,
scientific inquiry, and reflective thinking are met in cooperative and individual learning
situations and where there is variability in experiences, instructional situations, and instructional
materials, including resources outside the classroom or school using software and physical
objects (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Hatch, 2014; Hira & Hynes, 2018; Honey & Kanter, 2013;
Milner, 2003; Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017; Sreekanth et al., 2018).
Organizational Change: Organizational change refers to understanding how
organizations transform their components. Undergoing change includes interdependence and
independence to the environment, unique culture, status, values, power and authority structures,
15

organized decision-making, commitment and tenure, goals, ambiguity, perception, and success
(Abdallah & Mohammad, 2016; Hiatt, 2006; Kezar, 2011; Schneider et al., 1996).
Perennialism: The belief in learning from the most valuable past and current ideas and
classic literature to promote a thoughtful, critical response to these and others’ significant ideas.
It requires logical thought and imagination to bridge the external truths of valuable ideas and
traditions to evaluate the morality, value current, future events, and ideas regardless of setting
(Doğanay & Sarı, 2018; Hutchins, 1938).
Postpositivist: A deterministic philosophy about research in which causes probably
determine effects or outcomes. Thus, the problems studied by post-positivists reflect issues that
need to identify and assess the causes that influence the outcomes, such as found in experiments
(Creswell, 2014).
Pragmatism: A worldview or philosophy arises out of actions, situations, and
consequences rather than antecedent conditions. There is a concern with applications—what
works —and solutions to problems. Instead of focusing on methods, researchers emphasize the
research problem and use all approaches available to understand it (Creswell, 2014).
Self-regulation: An integrated learning process consisting of the development of a set of
constructive behaviors that affect one’s learning (Zimmerman, 2000). These processes are
planned and adapted to support the pursuit of personal goals in changing learning environments.
Self-regulation skills can be taught, learned, and controlled (Zimmerman, 2008).
Situated Practice: Situated practice is a key development in arts and humanities where
expertise comes not from a focus on a pre-defined discipline or subject but from a creative and
critical position that operates beyond these categories (Cazden et al., 1999).
16

Transformative Mixed Methods: This is a form of mixed-methods design in which the
researcher identifies a qualitative theoretical framework and uses it through the study such as to
establish the research problem, the questions, the data collection and analysis, interpretation, and
the call for action. It is used in conjunction with explanatory, exploratory, and embedded designs
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Transformative Worldview: This holds that research inquiry needs to be intertwined with
politics and a political change agenda to confront social oppression, inequities, and social justice
at whatever levels it occurs (Mertens, 2012).

17

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The educational landscape in the United States is in one of the most fluid periods in
history. Parents and educators face a plethora of choices that has impacted culture,
neighborhoods, and school setting (Bischoff & Tach, 2020; Potterton, 2020; Renzulli et al.,
2020). Their choices include independent schools of multiple varieties and educational
philosophies. How does one make an effective choice to ensure the highest level of learning both
as an educator and as a parent? How does this choice change when considering the uniqueness of
each learner? Educators have battled over the best curricular, philosophical, and pedagogical
approach to answer that question for centuries (Kirschner et al., 2006b). This literature review
examines prevalent theories of learning as well as the constructs that frame them and
contextualizes them in an approach to learning in the setting of an ecological learning space
(Flores, 2016), the elementary makers’ space.
Resistance to change is defined through characteristics like fear of helplessness, closed-
mindedness, lack of coping skills, adjustability deficiencies, inability to extend beyond defined
familiar parameters, and a reliance on the status quo (Hon et al., 2014). The result has been a
combination of social-contextual factors that impede effective change (Hon et al., 2014) that
includes innovation opportunities such as makers’ spaces. This resistance is a problem because
leaders need to overcome management obstacles to promote change (van Dam et al., 2008). The
literature review will present the constructs necessary for 21st century learners’ success and
begin to connect the development of these constructs through current research and the work of
classical educational stalwarts. The conceptual framework synthesizes these findings to identify
the maker mindset as a valid approach to effective and successful learning. The findings may
18

offer evidence to promote a solution to the problem of resistance to change in organizations
shifting toward school improvement.
Construct Description of the 21st Century Learner
Why should we focus on developing a 21st century Learner? Barak Obama (2009) stated:
I’m calling on our nation’s governors and state education chiefs to develop standards and
assessments that don’t simply measure whether students can fill in a bubble on a test, but
whether they possess 21st century skills like problem-solving and critical thinking and
entrepreneurship and creativity. (para. 19)
The reasons extend beyond developing the standards call to make college- and career-ready
students to a national need and a global context to develop innovators and entrepreneurs. The
3Rs (reading, writing, and arithmetic) of the mid-20th century agrarian society are no longer
sufficient to meet the demands of a global economy (National Education Association, 2012). The
National Education Association now calls on states to incorporate the 4Cs into the curriculum
and determine a way to assess the development of those skills.
The highest-level executives in the United States identified the 4Cs on an equal plane
with the traditional 3R education skills model (American Management Association, 2010). The
larger national problem for students in the United States is that they have been outperformed by
at least 20 international communities who two decades ago performed at or below the level of
U.S. Students (Martin et al., 2016; OECD, 2019). Levy and Murnane (1996) attested that the
level of routine and non-routine cognitive tasks decreased significantly while non-routine
analytic and interactive tasks increased significantly. These missing tasks required students to
use CT skills, identified as one of the four crucial criteria for 21st century learning skills
(Partnership for 21st Century Learning, 2019). While California has not accomplished it, other
19

states, such as West Virginia, have created content standards specific to 21st century learning
and CT (West Virginia Standards for 21st Century Learning, 2019). In South Korea, creativity
has been a mandated aspect of the curriculum (So et al., 2017). A successful, integrated model
may inform policy in California.
Critical Thinking
CT came to the forefront in K–12 education with the notion of 21st century learning and
the Common Core State Standards. The Partnership for 21st Century Learning (2019) developed
a framework to guide school districts around the country in addressing these skills. Of the 4Cs,
CT was the primary one. Recently, student progress reports were revised to reflect the grading of
CT practices in the content areas. Students now take summative state assessments, such as the
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, which specifically assess students on their ability to
apply CT. The results of these assessments have weighed heavily on an individual’s college and
career path. Institutions of learning have touted CT in their mission statements and curricula.
Moreover, in the scope of our current global landscape, reasoning, and CT have been crucial to a
stable culture and nation.
Likewise, CT is a necessary aptitude for being a critical and informed consumer and is
listed as a competency for being a productive citizen. Effective CT bridges a postpositivist and a
constructivist worldview by requiring evidence to creative thought and claims. The problem then
lies in identifying how and when to develop CT. This is important to determine because school
districts, schools, and classrooms must have effective direction on the research and strategies to
build these skills at the right time and in the right way with our nation’s students.
McCarthy-Tucker (1995) conducted a longitudinal study with 190 adolescents in the
Southwest United States who were divided and studied in three groups. One was instructed in a
20

reality-based logic curriculum, another group received instruction using a program to enhance
CT skills, and the third group served as the control group. The findings were that, of the three
groups, the students who received the logic-based curriculum demonstrated significant growth in
assessed CT skills. McCarthy-Tucker’s theoretical framework stemmed from the human
development constructs of Piaget and Chomsky. The parallel in human development skills
identified adolescence as the life stage for formally teaching logic to countermand the heavily
documented underdevelopment of CT skills. The logic group in the study was given at least one
hour of logic instruction per week. There was strong internal validity with the assessments used
for the pre- and post-assessment: the Content-Specific Test of Logic, the Test of Logical
Thinking and the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices Test. External and internal reliability
was enhanced through transparent study methods and reliant data analysis tools. The results of
these assessments demonstrated that a reality-based logic curriculum had a significant impact on
an increase in CT skills as well as the students’ increased self-perceived ability.
In this era of Common Core State Standards and the new forms of assessment,
researchers have recognized a need to take instruction and learning to a new level. Abdallah and
Mohammad (2016) argued that CT and self-learning skills prepare students to use their skills and
knowledge effectively as members of public society. Abdallah and Mohammad investigated the
real thinking and lifelong language learning needs of secondary-stage students, found that there
must be a secondary stage of learning that includes CT beyond what simply prepares students to
score well on knowledge-based standardized tests to improve lifelong learning, communication,
and proficiency in future careers.
Duesbery and Justice (2015) saw the need to respond to the question of whether an
instructional program highlighting CT can lead to an increase in CT skills. Duesbery and Justice
21

conducted an empirical quasi-experimental study of fourth and fifth graders to determine the
effect of a specific curriculum from the College of William and Mary Language Arts Model in
reading and writing. Teachers in the focus group were trained using the advanced literature unit,
and a control group of teachers did not have the training nor use the curriculum. Prior to
implementing the unit in the treatment group, the students in both groups received a pre-test in
CT, reading, and writing. The treatment groups were observed by two highly experienced
teachers to check for fidelity of program implementation. A post-test was then administered to
both groups at the end of the intervention period. The results yielded a significant increase in CT
skills for the treatment group. Duesbery and Justice provided some impetus for increasing
awareness to begin addressing teachers’ professional development and training to institute CT
skills in the curriculum.
Norris (1985) sought to determine what enhancements in education best promoted the
development of CT skills. The methodology of the study was a review of empirical,
philosophical, and policy research and literature. Norris’s summary of these articles identified
human beings’ preconceptions, or a belief preservation inclination to sustain preconceptions, in
the face of empirical evidence to the contrary. These preconceptions caused individuals to take
actions that were harmful and immoral to sustain the preconception. The way to combat these
actions was by developing CT skills through systematic, sustained practice. Norris
acknowledged that the idea of CT required a complex compilation of considerations, which made
it challenging to measure and identify. However, the author signified that effective CT skills
were necessary for acting morally and ethically in society. A concern lay in the anecdotal and
limited empirical evidence that CT skills were not promoted or developed in K–12 students.
Norris examined the importance of cognitive and metacognitive processes that resulted from CT
22

and how research showed that it benefits academic areas, problem-solving on STEM tasks, and
fallacy recognition. The implications of the study posited that CT development was an effective
antidote to self-deception of perceived authority on axioms. Norris identified the need for further
study to promote CT in curriculum and learning.
Howard et al. (2015) worked with nearly 700 randomly chosen students at a southern
state university, divided into four groups, in a mixed-methods study that used a Solomon four-
group design. Quantitative data were obtained through admission testing results and a pre- and
post-test of CT. Qualitative data on motivation were drawn from surveys. Professor participants
received training, which enhanced the validity of the results. Intervention modules were
administered to enhance students’ ability to understand logic and CT as a branch of knowledge
to promote mastery of subject matter content at all levels of their assignments. The interventions
did not result in a significant improvement, per the CT skills assessment. However, other
findings correlated prior success on the American College Testing entrance exam, high grades,
and external motivation to improved results between the pre- and post-assessments.
CT has become a regular buzzword that many institutions have listed as part of their
missions, 21st century ideals, and curricula. Cosgrove (2013) pointed out the scant level of
knowledge and the rarity of empirical studies that show us how to teach CT to be able to claim
effective teaching and show successful evidence of such learning, thus yielding a vast disparity
between assertions and practice. Cosgrove further elucidated that the most significant factors in
teaching and learning CT begin with self-assessment and targets for modification. Summarizing
Cosgrove’s description of thinking about CT, a three-part procedure was recommended: analysis,
evaluation, and creation through improvement. Cosgrove used an exploratory and qualitative
approach that encompassed interviews, observations, and document analysis where data was
23

garnered from multiple sources, levels, and by different processes, along with data evaluation,
and triangulation, thus giving credence to the suppositions.
There has been an ongoing debate as to whether gifted students have higher CT skills.
This was studied by Kettler (2014) who found evidence of a difference in CT skills among a
group of fourth-grade gifted students over general education students. Ketter administered the
Cornell Critical Thinking Test and the Test of Critical Thinking (TCT) to 209 students in a
suburban Texas school district. The results showed higher levels of CT for the gifted group. The
sample for Ketter’s study was from a random selection of three schools, followed by student
volunteers from within these schools. A concern was the number of student participants in each
group, which formed an imbalance at the onset. There were 163 general education and 45 gifted
students. There was also a discrepancy in percentages pertaining to ethnicity and SES. The gifted
students already received pull-out services and differentiated curriculum. In the big picture,
explicit, wide-scale CT development in gifted students was significant to meeting their academic
and social-emotional needs, OEs, because they already possessed a keen eye for arguments, the
ability to highly analogize, discover creative examples and solutions, and the power of thinking
conscientiously when one’s favorite beliefs are challenged (Matei, 2018). Implications for future
studies included replication using a larger sample with similar demographics and identifying CT
in specific (e.g., gifted, Advanced Placement, honors courses) and general education settings.
Florea and Hurjui (2015) sought to discern the methods and procedures that were more
effective in helping children develop CT skills. They identified two contexts, static and dynamic
—procedural—as the right formula. In the static context, teaching and learning were specific to
each stage of CT whereas, in the dynamic context, teaching and learning were more fluid due to
always activating methods with distinct tasks. Steps for each context were delineated and
24

observed. Both methods were described for their effectiveness. Florea and Hurjui found that
certain provisions of purposeful thinking practices and strategies, in appropriate learning
settings, were needed to be effective in teaching CT skills. Working in small groups and
applying the dynamic techniques to varied activities and in different settings was likewise
effective. The authors concluded that teaching CT beginning in pre-school was more
advantageous regardless of context in that, “The ability to think critically is acquired over time,
allowing children to manifest spontaneously, without limitation, whenever there is a learning
situation” (Florea & Hurjui, 2015, p. 568). The topics of context and age appropriateness for
teaching CT have implications for what, when, and how to teach CT and, therefore, needs much
further study. Indeed, the relevance of CT increases when paired with the second C of 21st
century skills: CreaT. Increased reasoning, logic, rational thought extends one’s ability to think
symbolically, non-rationally, vision-oriented, beyond conformity, and innovatively.
Creativity
To raise expert thinkers needed for a strong economy, it is important to have clarity on
what 21st century learning means as a framework in the educational setting to contextualize the
importance of creativity (Dede, 2010). To break out of the 20th century models that only prepare
adults for routine cognitive labor, instruction needs to connect to real-world context so that
problem-solving abilities transfer across new and varied contextualized tasks. Over time, we
have moved from the 1700s era where individuals and families had their own tools. Now, tools
are controlled by large industry or government, which has eroded our freedom and creativity and
given power over to those institutions (Vincent & Hatch, 2013). Craftwork needs to be part of
our idea of the creativity construct (Chaudhary & Pillai, 2016; Tanggaard & Wegener, 2016).
Dede (2010) contrasted knowledge that is merely presented as truth, disjointed from skill-
25

building, to constructed understanding that results in expert decision-making in situations where
the standard algorithm may not work.
Intense and compulsive behavior can be frequently found in the highly creative (Nelson,
1989). Real-life, contextualized tasks, sometimes called PBL (Zuryanty et al., 2019), that stem
from big ideas and are guided through essential questions, investigation, analysis, and evaluation
build on the learner’s ability to apply CT and CreaT to problem-solving (McTighe & Seif, 2010).
In the American Management Association Critical Skills Survey (2010), over 63% of 768 U.S.
managers and executives valued creativity, so it was implemented into their companies’ talent
development, and over 53% of them assessed for creativity in their hiring practices. The vast
majority of those surveyed believed that creativity would become the single most indicator of
future success, and over 81% agreed that creativity, improved through coaching, would align
their organization to succeed in an improving economy. Since creativity is so important for our
students’ future, we need to understand what it is in the maker context and ensure that it can be
adequately assessed in a collaborative team setting under variable circumstances (Reeves, 2010).
To make decisions on developing creativity in the educational setting, a historical context
of its definition is necessary. To measure creativity, Torrance (1988) related it to identifying
people who were creatively gifted in areas such as mathematics where divergent thinking
resulted in novel and useful solutions to problems. Torrance (1981) followed over 400 students
at above the norm IQ assessed on the Stanford-Binet and Weschler and determined that their
creativity gifts were encouraged and developed by teachers who made them feel comfortable
with their creativity and feeling of uniqueness. The students were given activities that provided
practice in creative skills, providing experiences that enlarged and enriched future career images,
and they were acknowledged for making creative contributions.
26

Torrance (1981, 1988) brought to the discourse the origins of creativity. Is it a gift? Are
people born with it? Is everyone creative in some capacity? Is it a socially collective construct?
Is it measurable, reproducible, and developable? Who determines this and what hegemonic and
cultural aspects determine creativity? Glăveanu and Lahlou (2012) posited three primary
historical perspectives on creativity’s modern definition: the I-paradigm, the he-paradigm, and
the we-paradigm. Glăveanu and Lahlou held a constructivist view that creativity was not a
natural part of what humans inherit but that it was socially constructed. Nothing is creative in
and of itself but only in relation to type of object, person, idea, action, performance; so, it is
culturally defined. The he-paradigm, essentialist view, reflected the Renaissance era idea of the
inherited creative genius (Sawyer, 2012, p. 408), such as a Da Vinci or a Nobel Prize winner,
which was formed through a male-centric perspective; additionally, this related to a big c
creativity view, eminent creativity, aligned to a common perception of creativity (Helfand et al.,
2016).
The I-paradigm, psychology view, also recognized genius in individuals but stemmed
from the democratic approach that we are all creative and that certain individuals have higher
levels of creativity, possibly as a result of cultivation (Sawyer, 2012, p. 406). This was termed
the little c creativity, exhibited in everyday life (e.g., decorating a journal, finding efficient ways
to problem-solve) which unlocked knowledge about people and the world (Helfand et al., 2016).
Here, Glăveanu and Lahlou (2012) warned against the arts bias of creativity in which most
people think of only the artistic talents in association with creativity (Sawyer, 2001). The we-
paradigm was based on the constructivist worldview that creativity is relative to the sociocultural
context in which it was created. He believed in the universal idea that all people are creative, and
that creativity is not concentrated in particular individuals since it can only occur in the social
27

catalyst of interaction. The sociocultural perspective requires theories and beliefs to have cultural
and contextual relevance. Glăveanu and Lahlou contrasted a neoliberal view of creativity from
which value is derived from the creative performance to improve products and technology to
become goods (Rhodes, 1961). To take a critical perspective is a creative process, so being
creative involves discoursing to understand perspectives outside of hegemonic frameworks of
creativity for the purpose of what it does for the learner, the doer, and the teacher. The we-
paradigm contrasted with the he- and the I-paradigms which viewed the individual as the creative
genius or talent.
In education, the little c may look like making math fun for elementary students or
guiding an original analysis of a classic Shakespeare play. Creativity experts purport that these
contributions are highly creative and deserve to be recognized as providing a benefit to students
who may not consider themselves creative (Silvia et al., 2014). The big c perspective exhorts us
to seek out and cultivate creative giftedness to achieve maximum potential and benefit to society
as a result. The educator’s role may be more tacit rather than explicit in teaching creativity
through technique to excite the students’ instinctive nature by acting as consultant/facilitator to
inspire creativity in a design process (Chen & Ling, 2010).
Educators need to promote intrinsic motivation (Hayenga & Corpus, 2010) to increase
creativity (Sawyer, 2012; Stanko-Kaczmarek, 2012) by freeing students up from a possible
overwhelming context to a meaningful product or creation (Amabile et al., 1990; Ruscio et al.,
1998). The innovator in our schools may be the restless one whose motivation is stifled due to
extrinsic rewards and punishments systems, which stifle creativity (Kaufman, 2016; Prabhu et
al., 2008). In this study’s model, educators encourage creativity by emboldening students to
share ideas, brainstorm, and experiment freely without the risk of humiliation. The goal to that
28

end may be accomplished through evaluative and divergent (Vogler, 2008) follow-up questions
to support idea growth multimodal and multisensory process, product opportunities, allow for
individual pace (Torrance, 1981) and a focus on “teamwork”, perseverance, product, process,
and expertise development in “various domains” (Sawyer, 2012, p. 418).
Making
Making is fundamental to being a human being (Reinke, 2020; Vincent & Hatch, 2013).
By virtue of being created in the image of the Creator, we are born to make and create (Genesis
1:27, English Standard Version). John Piper pointed out that the Greek word poieō means “do”
or “make” elaborating that when we do things, we are making something. He continued, “We are
all creators, makers, in some sense. Every time we act, every time we do anything, we make
something into something else, some situation into something different than it was” (Reinke,
2020, para. 8). The first Maker Faire was organized in 2006 by Dougherty (2012), founder of
Make magazine, out of the do-it-yourself culture. Making has spawned countless unlikely
entrepreneurs, products, and inventions (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017; Sawyer, 2012). Successful
community makers’ spaces like TechShop began in the Silicon Valley area circa 2006 (Hatch,
2014) and encouraged creativity through unconventional thought (Sawyer, 2012). They spawned
kickstart companies without having to find venture capitalist funding or taking out millions of
dollars in business loans (Hatch, 2014). Chris Anderson, the founder of Wired magazine, placed
the movement on par with the Industrial Revolution (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014) that
incorporated nine ideas of making: make, share, give, learn, secure tool access, play, participate,
support others, and make change happen (Hatch, 2014, pp. iv–v). The movement has been
embraced by K–12 schools, museums, tutoring agencies, libraries, colleges, and home school
groups (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014).
29

Making’s movement into the educational realm and inquiry-based practice was spawned
out of constructivist and constructionist philosophies (Blikstein & Krannich, 2013;
Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017). It builds on both the global and local communities' need to create
a STEAM pipeline by turning schools into a petri dish to develop innovative entrepreneurs and
designers for the future workforce (Dougherty, 2012; Vossoughi & Bevan, 2014). Making
democratizes learning opportunities (Anderson, 2012; Dougherty et al., 2016) by challenging
what true learning is and creating easy access to innovation via technology, programming,
robotics, woodworking, media communications (Stager, 2005), cheap hardware, and recycled
everyday building materials (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). Making offers learners from any
culture the opportunity to innovate an idea and make it come to life, whether it be a prototype
rocket made of LEGOs, computer graphics, or a product invention.
It is worth noting that claims about making’s inclusiveness have been contradicted.
Whelan (2018) suggested that maker kits (Seo, 2019) and a technocentric, tinkering, male-
centered maker identity discouraged girls and women from the pursuit of making. Seo added that
makers with disabilities were inhibited by a lack of accessible directions and multi-sensory
modules while also pointing out the low percentage of African American participation in maker-
centered media. Whelan dichotomized the male and female roles as being that males embraced
the term “maker” (p. 75) and lean more toward technology making while females tended more
toward the craft avenue of making. Ironically, Whelan found that many females who
purposefully make do not identify as makers, but the ones who see making as pure fun do
identify as a maker. Rather than paralleling Whelan’s “technological tinkerer” (p. 77) as a
synonym for maker, for my definition, I include all aspects of making, including hands-on, craft
30

making, material-working, coding, both analog and technocentric, technology-based production
as long as it requires constructing, problem-solving, and design.
Hira and Hynes (2018) cautioned that the lack of means to acquire technology may stifle
opportunities to develop educational makers’ spaces. Any threats to democratization require
remedying to promote equity. At the same time, the nature of an educational makers’ space
offers new hope for equity and STEM field agency among underrepresented individuals (Greene
et al., 2019) through the opportunity for all to experience English language and literacy
development (van Lier & Walqui, 2012) and high-level learning by combining CT, problem-
solving, effective teamwork, creativity, and sharing (Vincent & Hatch, 2013). This is enhanced
by the deliberate application of learning in a sociocultural context (Irie et al., 2019) to embed
transferable learning into long-term memory (Mayer, 2011; Reeves, 2010).
Among its many benefits, making promotes STEM and entrepreneurship, and makers’
spaces in the educational setting tap into experience-based, hands-on learning to facilitate
knowledge evidenced by a product (Dougherty, 2012; Hatch, 2014; Hughes, 2017). In
educational settings, making contributes to students’ capacities for innovation, creativity,
problem-solving, and CT through hands-on work, project teams, and a combined depth and
breadth of thinking (Kafai et al., 2011; Maltese et al., 2018). Making is a necessary departure
from traditional, seat-based learning because it promotes the integrated, task-based, slow,
spiraled learning in which the process and product demonstrate the mastery required by the
Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards (Bjork & Bjork,
2015).
The making process is like starting with the test and collaboratively figuring out the
solution through information and knowledge based on context clues and prior knowledge. This
31

ongoing retrieval process modifies one’s memory and learning in a long-term way, developing
transferable skills and deep learning (Bjork & Bjork, 2015; Hughes et al., 2019). Hughes et al.
(2019) pointed out that making in real-world contexts that uses CT and CreaT promoted
democratic values in a sociocultural context, termed “critical making” (p. 104). Products that
arise out of an educational makers’ space respond to global, community, and sociocultural needs.
For example, it is popular to infuse Rube Goldberg inventions in standards-based, historical
contexts to solve current and era-specific problems. Students have created “Rube Goldberg-type”
machines to demonstrate Next Generation Science Standards mastery and visual-spatial thinking
skills to enable learners to create and interpret complex issues conceptually as models and
systems (Ambrose & Sternberg, 2016, p. 213). Also, elementary and middle school students have
merged textiles and technology to solve community needs by designing anti-bullying apparel,
anti-rape jackets with working alarms, and fashionably bright safety apparel to wear in underlit
public areas (Barton et al., 2017). These projects demonstrated the power of making to promote
“intrinsic motivation”, imagination, collaboration and advance the CT and CreaT skills that
prepare learners to see “problems as opportunities”, which will give them an advantage in a
tumultuous 21st century job market (Ambrose & Sternberg, 2016, pp. 14).
The complexity of Rube Goldberg’s inventing heightened student engagement,
encouraged collaboration, nurtured creative thinking, and extended CT skills. (Zeitz & Sakai-
Miller, 2016). went deeper into the invention process, highlighting how it promoted
imagination, intrinsic motivation, and creative problem-solving. Students who learn through this
process could be more likely to perceive opportunities in problems. This may give them a
significant advantage in the turbulence of 21st century conditions. The idea being that learning
32

through the lens of constructivist, real-world issues that focus on process will be more impactful
than the traditional use of learning materials (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Hughes et al., 2019).
When making includes coding, robotics, digital art production, and circuitry, the
embedded iterative process promotes design thinking, pattern identification (Maltese et al.,
2018), and culturally inclusive multiliteracies (Mills, 2009). Papert synthesized the psychology
of human-computer interaction, critical theory, and cognitive sciences to create the first child-
friendly coding system, Logo (Blikstein & Krannich, 2013). This was a victory in that it reduced
cognitive load (Kirschner et al., 2006a) through an interface to allow the child to synchronize
coding effectively between a computer and the student (Card et al., 2018; Kirshner et al., 2006b).
In the makers’ space, students respond to guided questions and integrate words with visuals in a
social context to synthesize human-computer interaction with the design and hands-on aspect of
making to promote cognitive development through the application of the ideas of coding and the
design process (Card et al, 2018; Mayer, 2011). If this is experienced in an organized, positive
manner (Clark & Estes, 2008), these embedded problem-solving opportunities will increase
cognitive skill (Card et al., 2018; Pajares, 2006) and motivation for further learning (Pekrun et
al., 2002). Making extends constructionism beyond computer science to making and designing to
cultivate a civilization of innovative, empathic skeptics (Flores, 2016; Peterson, 2003). The
benefit may lie in making the complex process of coding and design attainable through a guided
process that builds CT and CreaT skills.
Cognitive skills and standards mastery aside, making promotes the soft skills needed to
be innovative members of society’s workforce and entrepreneurial group. To make, one must
figure things out and learn to learn. Collaboration, choice of tools, open-ended tangible tasks
promote interest, motivation, and perseverance through calculated frustration all promote
33

creativity (Kaufman, 2016; Maltese et al., 2018), engagement, personal relevance (Somanath et
al., 2016) socio-emotional growth, and confidence (Hughes et al., 2019). This comprises the term
maker mindset, a subcomponent of maker confidence that will be discussed further in the section
on the conceptual framework. It benefits both the learner and civil society by contributing to
economic development through localized entrepreneurship and small business (van Holm, 2017).
Constructivism
How do we learn and where does the knowledge that we gain come from? Constructivism
is one way to respond to that question. The philosophy and the pedagogy of constructivism do
not always overlap in principles, but constructivism offers ideas about that question (Krahenbuhl,
2016). According to contemporary educational leaders such as Krahenbuhl, constructivism
builds on the learning tenets of Rousseau, John Dewey, Paolo Freire as well as Vygotsky, Piaget
(McPhail, 2016; Fosnot, 2013), Bruner and Gardner (Fosnot & Perry, 1996). There are variations
such as social constructivism, which holds that individuals seek to understand the world in which
we live to collectively learn and develop subjective meanings of their experiences (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; McPhail, 2016). It has also been dichotomized into the psychology of Piaget’s
development theories as cognitive constructivism and Vygotsky’s ideas of the individual
constructing knowledge in formal and informal settings (Cobb, 1994) where learning is seen as
development rather than the result of development (deNoyelles et al., 2016). “In this regard, I
suggest that the sociocultural perspective gives rise to theories of the conditions for the
possibility of learning, whereas theories developed from the cognitive perspective focus on both
what students learn and the processes by which they do so” (Cobb, 1994, p. 18). Vygotsky
(1979) stated that “the social dimension of consciousness is primary in fact and time. The
individual dimension of consciousness is derivative and secondary” (p. 30). Constructivism, as a
34

learning rather than teaching belief (Fosnot, 2013), focuses on the intrinsic abilities of the learner
to make meaning. Learning happens through the process of searching and doing, sometimes
coming to terms with cognitive dissonance between the current knowledge and the ongoing
learning. Matthews (2003) challenged constructivism’s ability to make empirical claims.
Constructivism was countered by the notion that, if there is only constructed reality, then the
foundation of empirical testing is not possible. Matthews claimed that there must be a connection
between language and reality, but that constructivism purports anti-realism and relativity to all
knowledge and truth.
From the educator’s point of view (PoV), there is a need to promote the process through
social construction of events and situations (McPhail, 2016) based on two facets of the process
(von Glasersfeld, 2005): learning is a constructive activity carried out by students, and the
teacher does not dispense knowledge but provides opportunities and incentives to build
knowledge.
In opposition to absolute truth, it “abandon[s] the idea that ‘the world’ is there, once, for all, and
immutably, [and that we] substitute for it the idea that what we take as the world is itself no more
nor less than a stipulation couched in a symbol system.” (Bruner 1986, p. 105). Fosnot (2013)
connected this to pedagogy, rejecting the idea that symbols and lectures result in the passive
absorption of meaning and knowledge. Fosnot purports, instead, that we need to create concrete,
meaningful experiences, and context so that patterns are recognized. Learners question, model,
interpret, defend, and argue ideas. They reflect on these recognitions enabled by the teacher as
facilitator. Students are empowered, autonomous, and they connect learning across disciplines.
Disciplinary competence in content-related concepts is built through the nuances of
academic vocabulary, content vocabulary, and the discourse that results from a contextualized
35

situational problem-solving process (Mora-Flores & Kaplan, 2012). Krahenbuhl (2016)
suggested this is an alternative to direct teaching. Kirschner et al. (2006b) cautioned that learning
through simple experience of procedures falls short of genuine expertise and ultimate learning.
Bagley (1941) contended that effort that results from duty and discipline to understand essential
facts and abstract concepts may supersede interest as a motivator. “Real disciplinary experts are
so because they have put in vast amounts of time and study into their particular field”
(Krahenbuhl, 2016, p. 101). In other words, to think like a disciplinarian, one must know the
parameters for the discipline and not just have an awareness that it exists. So, in contrast to the
constructivist worldview, there is objectivity or truth that defines effectiveness at a discipline.
Constructivists contrast their philosophy with essentialism and positivism, student-
centered versus teacher-centered. Roberson and Woody (2012) accused essentialism of lacking
five characteristics of learning: understanding, thinking, problems, questions, and feedback.
They defended a student-centered approach where the teacher is a facilitator of learning,
emphasizing how to think, not what. Consider the following essentialist ideas of a teacher-
centered approach for mastery learning (Rosenshine, 2012):
1. Start with review prior learning and give feedback.
2. Use new material with examples, answer questions, and practice half the lesson.
3. Ask questions to determine understanding and allow multiple modes of response.
4. Models and worked examples reduce the cognitive load. Use prompts and guided
practice.
5. Use guided practice as rehearsal. Share each other’s work; better prepared to do it
independently (Papert & Harel, 1991, p. 2) cautions that “the more we share the less
improbable it is that our self-constructed constructions should converge”).
36

6. Check for understanding to avoid misconceptions and promote elaboration. Identify the
schema of thinking and problem-solving this way, make it explicit.
7. Shoot for 80% or higher for students successfully understanding before going on to
independent work. Promote mastery learning and do not go on until a sufficient amount
has been mastered.
8. Scaffold and prompt with who/why/how to promote self-asking questions—teacher
think-alouds.
9. Provide frequent independent practice to solidify the learning and skills development.
Make the knowledge automatic to free up thinking space for application and
comprehension—similar to phonics instruction—circulate the room 30 seconds each.
10. Weekly and monthly review. Embeds the learning into long-term memory freeing up
working memory and thinking to problem-solve and connect (patterns).
These 10 actions and instructional lists like them typically lead to the correct answer.
There may be an actual correct answer, but, often, there are multiple representations,
permutations, or perturbations of that correct answer. Cannot facilitated learning also lead to
uncovering knowledge and truth in learning? Perhaps the ideology of perennialism may rectify
aspects of constructivism and essentialism. Perennialism believes in learning from the most
valuable past and current ideas and classic literature, not necessarily a hard and fast list, to
promote a thoughtful, critical response to these and others’ significant ideas (Hutchins, 1938). It
requires logical thought and imagination to bridge the external truths of valuable ideas and
traditions to evaluate the morality and value current and future events and ideas regardless of
setting (Doğanay & Sarı, 2018).
37

In this discourse, we must consider what learning is, which learning is valued, and how it
is measured. Does it make sense to identify valuable learning as what is remembered over time
and available to be recalled in problem-solving contexts? All players in the discourse seem to
agree, at the least, that if knowledge is not remembered, it is not actually learned. Matthews
(2003) identified areas of learning that work and are not contextualized, such as playing an
instrument or playing tennis.
Kirschner et al. (2006b) criticized minimally guided instruction, including PBL,
discovery learning, inquiry learning, experiential, and constructivist. It should be noted that
Fosnot (2013) denied that constructivist education is the same as hands-on or discovery learning.
Kirschner et al. (2009) drew a line from learning to memory to discovery-constructivist,
unguided learning of essential information. They shared the claim that a lack of structure and
guidance on what ought to be learned created an overload of items or elements to keep track of in
working memory (Kirschner et al., 2006a), resulting in a strain on cognitive load. Guided
learning promotes student learning better than PBL, inquiry-based learning, authentic learning,
learner-centered, and constructivism because it allows for too many possible untrue thoughts to
occur and interfere with holding on to true learning and ideas (Krahenbuhl, 2016; Matthews,
2003).
Kirschner et al. (2006b) pointed out that what may be learned in an unguided learning
space may be harmful in that it risks implanting incorrect knowledge into long-term memory
(Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968; Krahenbuhl, 2016). Kirschner claimed that constructivism falls short
of an approach in which learners are explicitly shown the details, such as worked examples, and
the how for new learning. A caveat for these claims is that they apply to the general to low-
aptitude population. Studies show that high-aptitude learners may benefit from unguided or less-
38

guided instruction (Kirschner et al., 2006b). Matthews (2003) correlated performance to
learning, citing empirical studies that identify direct instruction and behaviorist models as having
significantly higher success than learner-centered, unassisted discovery (Alfieri et al., 2011)
models, more so among low-SES populations.
Runco and Pina (2013) found that shaping productive student behaviors through
encouragement promoted creativity and learning through the opportunity to practice and
complete projects that promote interpersonal skills and innovation. Yet, constructivism suits at
least some people better than current modes of learning (Papert, 1999), so many national
organizations promote constructivism, including the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National
Council for the Social Studies. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000) wrote
that “students must learn mathematics with understanding, actively building new knowledge
from experience and previous knowledge” (p. 2), and the National Council for the Social Studies
(2010, p. 1) asserted that “learning is a social act” and that students must “actively engage in
learning with and from each other through dialogue and reflection” (p. 1). Carson (2005) and von
Glasersfeld (2005) outlined the metaphysical and epistemological assumptions one must adhere
to if accepting constructivist pedagogy, summarized in three categories. First, reality is
dependent on the perceiver and thus constructed. Environment is the result of our experience, not
of an objective world. It is what the individual makes of it not what it naturally is. We can share
a learning experience, but we construct knowledge through the total experience. Second, reason
or logic is not the only means of understanding reality, but one of many; and knowledge does not
exist out of someone’s mind which means it has to be formulated, not found out. This gets to the
literacy of things. We understand words differently based on our experience. We interconnect
39

our experiences toward a similar understanding of a word. Third, knowledge of truth is
subjective and relative to the individual or community—conceptual operation that makes sense
to the subject’s experience so that what we know is the result of what our senses experience and
how we reflect on them to make knowledge—not an interaction with a real object, but the
previously constructed perceptual and conceptual structures.
Matthews (2003) retorted, “The implications of an epistemological view that contends
there is no objective reality has a profound effect on how the process or education in the
classroom is approached” (p. 52). Until one becomes an expert, background knowledge, and
scaffolding are needed to move to deep learning. Background knowledge is necessary to make
discovery learning effective; hence, we cannot push students to go deep without context and
background knowledge to understand the deep learning (Krahenbuhl, 2016).
Learners construct understanding of knowledge. It is evident in how we know that a key
will open a door. It was learned through experience and most likely socially through modeling,
practice, language, and movement, which all fit into constructivism. We learn out of both the
biological and the consciousness of mental processes in the mind (National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). It happens through the physical and the mental
interaction of thought, reflection, collaboration, and discourse. However, efficiency increases
with guidance. Guided learning promotes student learning more than PBL, inquiry-based
learning, and pure constructivism because those allow for too many possible untrue thoughts to
occur and interfere through misconception with the memory’s function to hold on to true
learning and ideas (Krahenbuhl, 2016). This is seen in research on cognitively guided instruction
as a guided/constructed way to learn. As students progressed from kindergarten through fifth
grade, algorithm-centered math instruction increased their misunderstanding of the abstract
40

symbols of an equation. Lack of teacher-guided, student-constructed understanding of what the
equal sign means reinforces misconceptions into the memory of students who rely on the teacher
to be the sole source of knowledge (Falkner et al., 1999). I will continue to explore and
understand the best balance of these ideas as we look further at educational philosophy and
psychology.
Constructionism
The precepts of constructivism and critical pedagogy form the foundation for the
psychology and philosophy of constructionism (Flores, 2016) to permute the educational model
that occupied the last couple of centuries. Papert (1999) took these foundations to combine the
idea of learning through practice and collaboration, constructing knowledge, conceptual learning,
and using tools to create or inquire and develop knowledge about content disciplines (Sreekanth
et al., 2018). Papert extended the meaning of literacy as a communication and analysis tool (Gee,
2015) through the language construct of coding. Hong and Ditzler (2013) modernized these ideas
using the term “connectivism” (p. 20) as a learning theory of building and collecting knowledge
in the digital age in which students create their personal learning environment through digital
tools that include social media.
Constructionism promotes the construction of knowledge of various subjects through
personal inquiry, creativity, play, testing, and making ideas come to fruition (Flores, 2016).
However, countering some constructivists, learning is the result of experiences evidenced by
products that work (Stager, 2005). It taps into Vygotsky’s social-development theoretical
psychology ideas of learning wherein practice and doing serve as a cognitive tutor “building
knowledge structures” (Maxwell, 2006, p. 291) with a process of joyful positive engagement that
occurs through making in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing
41

something societally real and concrete (Papert, 1999). Yet, Papert, offering a paradox in
constructivist fashion, states, “then one must expect that I will not be able to tell you my idea of
constructionism. Doing so is bound to trivialize it. Instead, I ... encourage your own personal
construction of something” to create ideas worth talking about (p. 1).
In constructionism, the learning environment is the centerpiece, so that technology and
blended learning models start with the learning. Its episteme reflects an integration of the style in
which each individual thinks to then affect his/her construction of knowledge (Papert, 1999). The
International Society for Technology in Education adopted nationally recognized standards that
promote constructionist, novel thinking (Maxwell, 2006). The headings for the standards incline
educators to notice how positive descriptors work out constructionism in the learning
environment. They include empowered learners, digital citizen, knowledge constructor,
innovative designer, computational thinker, creative communicator, and global collaborator
(ISTE, 2018).
In schools, students are motivated to learn by building and working with concrete
materials integrating technology, hands-on tools, and content (Papert, 1999). Learning how to
use a tool, as a practitioner does, builds perspicacious knowledge of structure that comes through
involvement (McCullough, 1998, p. 196). The individual’s practice constructs understanding out
of the occasions and the need to use the tools, which arises directly out of the context of a guided
activity. This flourishes from the way a community views and uses the tool in its lived-in world
(Brown et al., 1996). Constructionism is an effective model for personally meaningful learning
by building intrinsic motivation to empower the learner to succeed based on the product of their
hands-on integration of disciplines and technology. The positive socio-emotional result is that
42

self-efficacy is increased as students see themselves as disciplinarians in fields like engineering,
architecture, math, and technology (Stager, 2005).
In school makers’ spaces, the benefit of sociocultural practice is that learners take on the
role of a practitioner, without having to be an expert, while advancing toward expertise
knowledge whether in a contextualized authentic or artificial setting (Maxwell, 2006). Learning
from one’s peers in this space helps the learner naturally build on his/her own work and
understanding. Hughes et al. (2019) found that a constructionist making space, through a critical
lens, supported at-risk elementary students to improve citizenship and self-learning. The students
developed a growth mindset and positive self-advocacy that resulted in a transfer of content and
social-emotional knowledge and growth that prior traditional learning approaches failed to
accomplish. These students, through increased perseverance, decreased bullying incidents over
time as a result of maker tasks, problem-solving, CT, collaboration, and perspective building.
Integrating constructionism (making) in schools is supported by a need to capture a balance of
structure (emotional safety) and free expression and play (making), a foundation for promoting
the creative process (Laurillard et al., 2013).
Cognitive Theory Principles
There is a reciprocal relationship between brain development and learning.
“Development of the brain influences behavior and learning, and in turn, learning influences
brain development and brain health” (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine, 2018, p. 68). Makers’ spaces provide opportunities to learn that are unique in the
current climate of school policy that determines accountability primarily through standardized
assessments (Millar, 2012). The mindset that there are truth and value in a multitude of
perspectives will frame the stage that is set for learning in the makers’ space environment. The
43

philosophy and psychology behind multiple worldviews, theories, constructs, and concepts will
intertwine (Papert 1999).
Social cognitive learning theory extended from Albert Bandura’s social learning theory
and may also be called self-efficacy (Lin, 1999), the beliefs we have about our capabilities. It
purports that learning occurs in the context of social, dynamic interaction among the individual,
environment, and behavior. It goes hand in hand with motivation and self-regulation because,
without that, effective social behavior and reciprocal relationships cannot occur (Schunk &
Zimmerman, 2007). Self-efficacy and effort go hand in hand with one’s actual ability as
indicators of high and low motivation (Clark, 1999, p. 22). Moreover, it monitors the balance
between what one believes one can do and what one actually can do (see Figure 1).

44

Figure 1
Self-Efficacy

Note. From “Engineering motivation using the belief-expectancy-control framework,” by R. E.
Clark, and B. Saxberg, 2018, Interdisciplinary Education and Psychology, 2(1), p. 10
(https://doi.org/10.31532/interdiscipeducpsychol.2.1.004). Copyright 2018 by R. E. Clark, and B.
Saxberg.

For a learner to monitor motivation, the student uses CT and CreaT (Lin, 1999). Social
cognitive theory notices that our internal cognitive processes affect our behavior. This theory
includes the idea that, in an instructional setting, a competent model promotes learning through
observation (Bandura et al., 1962). Observation is not to be confused with passive or osmotic
learning by which learning just comes to the individual’s knowledge bank (Gholson & Craig,
2006). Approximately 95% of humanity does not learn alone (Yates, 2017). Even while alone,
we interact and individually drive learning by assessing a task, evaluating our own strengths and
45

weaknesses, planning, applying strategies and monitoring performance followed by “critical
reflection” to determine next steps (Ambrose et al., 2010, p. 191).
In social cognitive theory, modeling and practice are important but only if the practice
that engages the learner’s knowledge or skills is effective, scaffolded with behavior-changing
feedback, and achieves mastery goals (Ambrose et al., 2010). If deliberate practice balances
challenge to current knowledge and quantity to quality towards a communicated goal, it
promotes new knowledge built on prior knowledge without cognitive overload (Ambrose et al.,
2010; Kirschner et al., 2006a; Mayer, 2011).
Sociocultural learning theory relies heavily on the research of Lev Vygotsky (1986) and
builds on cognitive perspectives, draws from the cultural origins of cognition and development,
and explores how individuals advance through their involvement in cultural practices; thus,
social context serves to mediate learning and thinking (Scott & Palinscar, 2006; Yates, 2017). In
the sociocultural learning theory context, the student’s process for learning is beyond what can
be achieved as an individual. Learning is formed on a continuum through the interaction between
the mental thinking components and both the social and cultural contexts that may enhance or
impede learning (Cochran-Smith & Dudley-Marling, 2012). In this context, multimodal literacies
are strengthened through purposeful meaning-making (Gee, 2015). Heath (1996) connected the
need for a sociocultural context to promote the underlying literacies of attitudes, language uses,
and adaptation in social roles required for effective CT.
In the context of the makers’ space, the actors value individualism as well as contentious,
informed dialogue among individuals who are attentive to ideas and thoughts outside their own
direct sensory experiences. It promotes the type of maker learning in which understanding is co-
constructed via multiple sources of text, materials, expert and novice knowledge while rejecting
46

a deficit mindset that prescribes particular practices that isolate learners to be confined by a
learning identification label (Cochran-Smith & Dudley-Marling, 2012). Through this
perspective, the learner can form ideas interactively in an upward, scaffolded trajectory by
continually working between anxiety and boredom to balance what he/she can and will achieve
(Shor, 1999; Smagorinsky, 2013; Vygotsky, 1978).
Thus, sociocultural learning is like constructivism in that individuals learn through
engaging in activities, but it differs from constructivism because it is a guided process. Scott and
Palinscar (2006) noted that “constructivism suggests one should attend to the learning and
mental representations of the individual while sociocultural theory is more concerned with the
ways in which learning is an act of enculturation” (p. 4). Nasir and Hand (2006) extended
Vygotsky’s interpersonally connected ideas of cognitive development scaffolded through the
learner’s agency and the beat by beat, short-term, and historical, long-term process of
collaborative experience. Cultural practices, tools, artifacts, language, and social relationships
interplay as springboards to learning (Yates, 2017). There is also an interplay between the
individual plane which involves cognition, emotion, behavior, values, and beliefs and the social,
interpersonal plane utilizing dialogue, cooperation, conflict, assistance, and interactions (Nasir &
Hand, 2006). The approach builds on foundations in these contexts. This has played out
throughout history in apprenticeship relationships and the many trades that relied on a layered
progression of inquiry and learning among individuals of varying expertise (Lipman, 1997),
which promotes CT and CreaT (Matei, 2018).
Papert (1999) claimed that, in the making environment, disruptors may increase
engagement and motivation, and, in turn, “teaching would become better” (p. 7). Learning and
understanding that extends to the long term occurs when specific cognitive-related actions and
47

“cognitive processes” take place to move from “working memory” to “long-term memory”
(Mayer, 2011, pp. 34–37). This breaks down into a sequence of functions (Mayer, 2011) that I
will connect to making experiences. The learner’s senses briefly and rapidly take symbols,
pictures, sounds, and touch to decontextualize and initiate sensory memory (Kuhl, 2000). This is
accomplished by giving attention to and selecting relevant images and words to transfer into
working memory. In the limited capacity of working memory, the learner begins to organize the
information to either process out that which is irrelevant or process that which is relevant to the
larger capacity of long-term memory. Mayer noted that the learner integrates the verbal and
image representations into a more organized format to transfer the relevant knowledge,
connected to prior knowledge into long-term memory. The making environment is a petri dish
for these processes to occur.
Learners in the makers’ space engage in the design process in a way that Marzano (2011)
refers to as “enhanced discovery learning” (p. 86) which may include direct teaching that builds
knowledge on a topic or content prior to posing an essential question (McTighe & Seif, 2010). It
involves individually and collaboratively generating ideas and describing one’s thinking. The
teacher-facilitator chunks and guides the knowledge-building by assisting the learner to observe
and understand patterns and phenomena (Roberson & Woody, 2012). From a student-centered
frame, Roberson and Woody described the cognitive learning process as responding to a
challenge via thinking, contextualizing, and processing ideas through problems, overcoming
difficulty using intellect, prior experience and knowledge wherein formative feedback, questions,
interactive dialogue, and reflection drive the learner toward higher-level understanding. The
makers’ space environment catalyzes these learning processes through motivation and self-
regulation driven by high interest and positive emotional connections to the activities.
48

Motivation is built through the psychological factors of self-efficacy, attributes, mood,
emotions, and expectancy value (Anderman & Anderman, 2006; Bandura, 1997; Clark & Choi,
2005; Eccles, 2006; Lin, 1999), which affect self-regulation (Bandura, 2001; Bong et al., 2012;
Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). Self-regulation accounts for 30% to 40% of learning transfer and
application of academic learning for individual and collaborative learning, respectively (Elliott et
al., 2005). Behaviors that correlate with these motivational factors include engagement, active
goal pursuit, perseverance, persistence, and mental effort over time (Clark & Choi, 2005; Von
Culin et al., 2014). The vital role that motivation plays in learning and its ensuing evidence, and
production is one of the primary considerations when determining the effectiveness of a program
or educational philosophy (Clark, 2015). In other words, motivation is a primary catalyst for
becoming a democratic citizen and productive member of 21st century society. Commitment and
effort are influenced by self-efficacy when the learner has confidence in one’s ability to succeed
within a situated context (Lin, 1999). Dweck (2002) dichotomizes this into a theory of entity,
fixed mindset, wherein the learner believes that one’s ability will not change over time against an
“incremental” view, growth mindset, that one’s ability and creativity (Hass et al., 2016, p. 437)
will improve with effort. The incremental view promotes learning by increasing motivation
through intrinsic interest (de Jesus et al., 2013; Kaufman, 2016; O’Keefe et al., 2018) and self-
efficacy to build self-regulation to improve learning (Bandura, 2015; Elliott et al., 2005).
It is important to note that the components of motivation, such as interest, values, and
self-regulation, may appear to align with individual learning styles, such as visual, auditory, or
kinesthetic (Pashler et al., 2008). However, the idea of instructing to learning styles has been
effectively unmasked as ineffective and not factored into the study of CT and CreaT (Pashler et
al., 2008; Royal & Stockdale, 2015). Self-regulatory strategies, including goal setting, enhance
49

learning and performance (Dembo & Eaton, 2000; Denler et al., 2014). These non-cognitive
factors and attributes predict the impact on individuals’ success in academics, economics, and
well-being (Duckworth & Yeager, 2015). Bracken et al. (2003) highlighted self-regulation as the
catalyst and the glue for CT to occur (see Figure 2). Now that CT and CreaT have been defined
in this research, the question is how it comes about.

50

Figure 2
Self-Regulation as the Catalyst for CT

Note. From the Test of Critical Thinking Examiner’s Manual (p. 7) by B. A. Bracken, W. Bai, E.
Fithian, M. S. Lamprecht, C. Little, and C. Quek, 2003, Center for Gifted Education, The
College of William and Mary. In the public domain
51

Can CT and CreaT develop outside of direct instruction? Observational learning is not
the only way a person can learn without receiving external feedback or rewards. Implicit pattern
learning, also called statistical learning, involves the learning of regular patterns in a particular
environment without actively intending to do so. This kind of learning, sometimes called situated
learning, requires extended exposure to a pattern sufficient for unconscious recognition of
regularities in an otherwise irregular context without conscious attention and reflection. It
purports that humans vigorously create meaning and knowledge from the natural activities of
daily life that foster fluid observational learning enhanced through peer or internal relationships
(Clancey, 1995). Clancey added that constructed knowledge is influenced by the interactions we
receive and initiate in a social-community context that results in increased expertise and a
created or interpreted product that describes what the person is doing and learning. Counters to
this theory may claim that knowledge is a compilation of facts that can be indexed and
represented or noted in a skill that shows up in practice. Another counter is that situated learning
is merely throwing an individual into an activity to try it out. However, it is how humans
conceptualize.
In the makers’ space context, constructed knowledge connects prior knowledge with
authentic, informal, and often unforeseen contextual learning, and in this way, the students in a
makers’ space collaboratively build CT through these processes as well as its embedded
kinesthetic opportunities. Academic discourse in a situated reference, a contextualized space,
builds discipline competency from a situational problem-solving process that accesses the
learner’s prior knowledge and culture (Mora-Flores & Kaplan, 2012) and builds intrinsic interest
(Schraw & Lehman, 2009). The learner's self-perception of roles with peers in a normed, safe
setting where success breeds success increases a passive cognitive process without external
52

feedback. The role of determined, sustained effort, or grit, binds the ideas of situational,
observational, and guided learning via deliberate practice which incorporates skills, ideas, and
design (Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2016) in a contextualized environment such as a makers’ space.
An Approach That Combines the Benefits of These Theories: Maker Mindset
Schools must achieve several goals; (a) to mine, exploit, sustain the motivation to learn;
(b) to teach those skills and that knowledge that make the world, past and present, meaningfully
comprehensible; (c) to instill the sense of personal competence and social responsibility.
Achieving these goals begins to describe what we think we mean by productive. William James
said the litmus of the efficacy of what we do is its cash value, or how much of what we wanted to
achieve we did achieve. “The cash value of educational reform is written in red ink” (Sarason
2004, p. 242).
Ultimately, the idea of how we learn in terms of knowledge and what there is to know is
deterministic, and an empirical approach can uncover it. Even Papert (1999) admitted “it is
conceivable that science may one day show that there is a ‘best way,’ for humans to think and
learn” (p. 3). At the end of the day, “resistance of reality” will not work (Stahl, 2004. p. 26). I
seek to be informed about the impact that a makers’ space has on CT and CreaT. The theories
that have been described will weave into the testing, discovery, and verification of them in the
context of the space and process. Claims will be made and tested for veracity while remaining
open to new findings or no findings.
This process is encapsulated in the idea of a maker mindset. By this, I mean that students
learn to problem-solve critically and creatively and learn through design, discovery, inquiry, and
reflection in pliant situations where collaborative as well as individual experiences connect to
knowledge growth and application to sustain life-needs both now and in the future (Roberson &
53

Woody, 2012). The collaboration and interaction involved with making promote creativity (Kim,
2011b).
The Gifted Learner
What does one think of when a person is identified as gifted? The state of California,
through Assembly Bill 1040, recognizes gifted and talented students by five categories and
requires all schools to implement a Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) program (California
Department of Education, 2005). The largest school district in California identifies students for
GATE in the following categories: intellectual ability, high achievement ability, specific
academic ability, creative ability, leadership ability, visual arts ability, performing arts ability
(Los Angeles Unified School District, 2016). For the gifted, their particular attribute comes
naturally, whether it be creativity, leadership, artistic, athletic, intellectual aptitude, precocity,
and content area knowledge (Gagné, 1997). The California Department of Education defined
gifted and talented as “a pupil enrolled in a public elementary or secondary school who is
identified as possessing demonstrated or potential abilities that give evidence of high-
performance capability” (p. 9). The California Department of Education stated, “Each district
shall use one or more of these categories in identifying pupils as gifted and talented. In all
categories, identification of a pupil’s extraordinary capability shall be in relation to the pupil’s
chronological peers” (p. 10). Elementary gifted students outperform non-gifted students on
cognitive ability tests and demonstrate higher mental attention processing with the ability to hold
and process more information, six or more elements (Kirschner et al., 2006b), more quickly, in
working memory (Johnson et al., 2003) resulting in higher self-regulation efficiency and
motivation (Calero et al., 2007).
54

Research also shows little correlation between intelligence and creativity; however, since
motivation is significant to developing creativity and to remediating underachievement in gifted
individuals, there is an imperative to build creativity in those who are intellectually gifted
(Kaufman, 2016). The evidence highlights that there is not a globally, agreed-upon approach to
meeting the needs of gifted students (Delisle, 2015) while acknowledging the need to promote
multi-modal and alternative measures of identification so students from both mainstream and
underrepresented groups have their learning needs met (Renzulli & Brandon, 2017). This begs
for the need for expertise in the area of identification on the part of the practitioner.
Because of misconceptions about who the gifted are and what their needs are, many
gifted students slip through the cracks. Norm-reference IQ tests such as the Stanford-Binet and
the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children demonstrate an approximate 10 percentage point
swing on scores between low to average- to high-SES individuals (Gagné, 2011). To ensure that
these students’ needs are met, adequate identification needs to be a starting point because the
educator’s instruction depends on knowing the aptitudes and particular needs of the learner
(Clark, 1982; Kirschner et al., 2006b). Underrepresented groups can benefit from valid, creative
ways to identify, including meritocratic rubrics that include constructs such as achievement and
potential (Dimaano, 2011), sports, and arts talent performance (Gagné, 2011). The current focus
on achievement rather than potential based on indicators prevents many gifted, especially highly
gifted, students from passing through the screening process (Dimaano, 2011). Additional
underrepresented students are uncovered by eliminating culturally related literacy inhibitors
through other research-based measures such as portfolios, case studies (Borland, 2004), and
spatial, reasoning tests (Naglieri & Ford, 2003; Wai & Worrell, 2016).

55

Needs of the Gifted Learner
While the identification of gifted students is mandated in most states, often the process
stops there. Less than 30% of states require schools to integrate a curriculum or provide guidance
on grouping the students who are identified (Kamenetz, 2015). Approximately 15% to 40% of
gifted students do not live up to their abilities (Seeley, 2004). When students are not challenged,
their socio-emotional needs are not met, and they are put at risk of isolation and even bullying
(Kamenetz, 2015). Rayneri et al. (2003) found that underachieving gifted and high-ability
students benefit from and prefer structured discovery learning that promotes kinesthetic
manipulatives, tactility, sounds in learning, low lighting, interest-based assignments as well as
support for a common struggle with problem-solving perseverance. Gifted students have unique
factors that contribute to and inhibit self-regulation (Reis & Greene, 2015). Since, compared to
the remaining population, gifted students tend to apply more definitive learning goals and
strategies, Reis and Greene recommended that adults help these students focus on understanding
and mastery versus performance and perseverance through struggle using five strategies to build
self-regulation:
● Guide learners’ self-beliefs, goal setting, and expectations with specific positive, effort
focused feedback.
● Promote reflective dialogue through modeling and collaboration.
● Provide corrective feedback with clear expectations about the task (rather than the
learner).
● Help learners make connections between abstract concepts by determining relevant
information and developing relevant examples.
56

● Help learners link new experiences to prior learning using real-life examples and
activities that promote knowledge transfer.
While all learners benefit from motivation, gifted learners are motivated in unique ways.
Wai et al. (2010) found that, when gifted elementary students were motivated through
intellectual challenge, creative thinking (Kim, 2011b) and future college qualifying exam scores
increased. They observed that competitions, projects, clubs, and college-like courses are
motivating interventions that benefit gifted and profoundly gifted benefited more so from
independent opportunities.
National Interest to Develop the Gifted Learner
Nationwide, 7% of students participate in gifted programs, and, in California, 60% of
schools offer gifted education (Sparks, 2020). In California, there is no categorical funding to
support gifted students (S.B. 1038, 2003). Gifted students’ high dropout rate, approximately 25%
(Garrett, 2011), is an economic burden to the nation (Renzulli & Park, 2002), not only in the
amount of funding that went into educating them but in the loss of national economic
competitiveness (Plucker et al., 2010; Wai et al., 2010). Meeting the needs of gifted students
benefits our nation’s technology development and our gross domestic product by internally
developing success and talent that increases our tax base (Wai & Worrell, 2016).
Gifted Learner as an At-Risk Group
Approximately one-fourth of gifted learners are underachievers (Kennedy, 1997). Almost
half of the gifted students who drop out of school are in the low-SES range (Renzulli & Brandon,
2017; Renzulli & Park, 2002). Silverman and Gilman (2020) claimed that this is a civil rights
violation that excludes students who are gifted, highly gifted, twice-exceptional, and lower SES.
Wai and Worrell (2016) found that gifted students who underachieve and drop out do so due to
57

perfectionism, insufficient computer participation, few hobbies or extracurricular activities, poor
grades resulting in poor behavior, poor attendance (Seeley, 2004), not liking school, or entering
the workforce. Gifted learners’ underachievement can correlate to inappropriate, undemanding or
unmotivating curriculum (Reis & Greene, 2015). Seeley (2004) found in a study of 2000 middle
school children who tested in the upper quartile of intellectual ability that 37% averaged a grade
of C or worse and over half were at risk of dropping out of school. To avoid potential harm to
our nation and civilization, the problem of underachievement needs to be seen as an epidemic to
“tens of thousands” (Rimm, 2008, p. 357).
Underachievement and the Gifted Learner
It is vital to intervene early for gifted students because underachievement may negatively
impact learning (Emerick, 1992). “Underachievement Syndrome” (Rimm, 2008, p. 357) occurs
in students whose school achievement performance tracks negatively over time (Colangelo et al.,
1993; Krouse & Krouse, 1981; Reis & McCoach, 2000; Rimm, 2008; Supplee, 1990; Thorndike,
1963). Underachieving gifted students “dawdle, forget homework, lose assignments, misplace
books ... daydream ... talk too much to other children” (Rimm, 2008, p. 5), are bored, have an
ever-increasing gap between evidenced aptitude and academic performance, and have few to no
study skills (Reis & McCoach, 2000).
Overcoming underachievement syndrome in at-risk gifted students (Table 1) includes
overcoming motivational factors with engaging, relevant tasks in child-centered classrooms,
student-centered teaching strategies that promote intrinsic motivation, extracurricular activities,
safe pathways through risk-taking, and self-regulation (Colangelo et al., 1993; Dweck, 1986;
Emerick, 1992; Ford et al., 2001; Reis & McCoach, 2000; Supplee, 1990; Webb et al., 2007).
Because things come easily for gifted students early on, self-regulation habits are neglected,
58

resulting in a gap in ability and performance in secondary school and beyond (Hansen, 2018;
Reis & Greene, 2015; Rimm, 2008). Additionally, as the intelligence factor approaches the tail of
the bell curve, OEs increase their impact (Dąbrowski, 1966; Daniels & Piechowski, 2009),
putting these learners more at risk due to misdiagnoses, such as attention deficit disorder, as well
as social stigma and teacher bias (Daniels & Piechowski, 2009; Hong & Ditzler, 2013). A gifted
individual’s OEs (Table 2) are frequently misunderstood by adults and educators who prefer
conformed children in the classroom (Daniels & Piechowski, 2009, p. 68; Morelock, 1997; Ruf,
2009; Tillier, 1999). When a learner is unable to navigate these OEs and make conscious,
positive moral choices, underachievement may ensue (Tillier, 1999). These learners struggle to
fit in (Silverman, 1993), and, by virtue of all of these complex characteristics and the potential
achievement-impeding factors, giftedness should be considered an at-risk category (Seeley,
2004), as these students need specialized socio-emotional and academic support (Shaughnessy et
al., 2015).

59

Table 1
Definitions That Emphasize Specific IQ/Ability Test Score as a Criterion for Identification as a
Gifted Underachiever
Author Date Key concept
Colangelo et al. 1993 Giftedness as evidenced by scores at the 95th percentile or
above on the American College Testing assessment;
underachievement as evidenced by grade point average of
2.25 or below in high school coursework.
Gowan 1957 Giftedness as evidenced by an IQ of 130 or above. Diagnosis
of underachievement occurs when a student falls in the
middle third in grades, and severe underachievement
occurs when a student falls in the lowest third.
Green et al. 1988 Giftedness as evidenced by scores in the top 2% of the
Tollefson norm group on an intelligence test.
Underachievement as evidenced by earning a C or below
in at least one major academic subject, at least a one-year
difference between expected and actual performance on a
standardized achievement test or failing to complete work
or submitting incomplete work at least 25% of the time.
Krouse and
Krouse
1981 Underachievers are individuals who consistently, over a
number of years, perform at higher levels on instruments
of academic aptitude or intelligence than they do in regular
classroom situations.
Supplee 1990 High academic ability as assessed through an IQ score or
through achievement test scores at the eighth or ninth
stanine. Low achievement as evidenced by achievement
test scores that were at least two stanines lower than the IQ
score, or by teacher ratings, or by school grades showing a
marked discrepancy from expected achievement based on
IQ or achievement tests.

Note. Adapted from “The Underachievement of Gifted Students: What Do We Know and Where
Do We Go?” by S. M. Reis, and D. B. McCoach, 2000, The Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), p. 153
(https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400302). Copyright 2000 by S. M. Reis and D. B.
McCoach.
60

Table 2
Overexcitabilities (OE)
OE Individuals with this
OE ...
How it looks in gifted children
Psychomotor Have a surplus of
energy (which
can mimic and be
confused with
hyperactivity)
They may appear to be perpetual motion
machines, unable to sit still. They twist,
wiggle, and fidget. Even if their body
happens to be still, they may bombard
you with rapid speech and talk or act
compulsively. They can show intense
drive and competitiveness; and while
their enthusiasm can be infectious, they
are often exhausting to be around.
Having these wonderfully enthusiastic
individuals on your team is likely to
mean you get a lot done.
Intellectual Are often described
as having an
insatiable drive to
learn
They ask a million questions and cannot
turn their mind off at night. They are
independent thinkers and keen
observers, driven to learn and attracted
to both logic and abstract theory.
Tending to be highly focused on moral
concerns and issues of fairness, they
often find the playground to be a
challenge when they are young. Their
strong need for everyone to play fairly
by the rules is usually in sharp contrast
to agemates who just want to have a
good time.
Sensual Experience
powerful
reactions to
sensory input and
have strong
aesthetic
awareness (which
may be viewed as
being overly
sensitive or
reactionary)
They may have heightened senses with
regard to taste, texture, food, light,
noise, odors, etc. They may need the
tags cut from their clothing, may have
an epic meltdown over a wrinkle in their
sock, or possess picky eating habits.
Intensely aware of and in awe of
beautiful things, this may be the
kindergartner who cries upon hearing
Mozart, the student deeply drawn to
poetry, the budding fashion designer, or
the highly nuanced food critic.
61

OE Individuals with this
OE ...
How it looks in gifted children
Imaginational Are often seen as
highly creative,
divergent thinkers
They are inventive, creative, and have
strong visual thinking skills. So richly
imaginative is their world that they may
confuse reality with fantasy and become
lost in magical thinking. For some, their
mind’s internal world of richness and
beauty can be so enticing that they zone
out when they should be paying
attention elsewhere. They can change
boring things into fascinating,
wonderful things.
Emotional Have extremely
complex and
intense emotions
that can span the
full range of
human expression
They are deeply sensitive and often filter
their entire existence in the world
through their emotions. These
individuals are loyal and keenly aware
of the feelings of others. While a
contributor to compassion and empathy,
the emotional OE can also evoke
feelings of inadequacy, self-criticism,
and guilt. Both Dąbrowski and many
who work with the gifted population see
this OE as the one most commonly
displayed.

Note. Adapted from Living with intensity: Understanding the sensitivity, excitability, and
emotional development of gifted children, adolescents, and adults (pp. 33–56) by S. Daniels, and
M. M. Piechowski, 2009, Great Potential Press. Copyright 2009 by Great Potential Press

The Benefit of the Makers’ Space for the Gifted Learner
According to Mayer (2011), high interest indicates that students work harder when they
like the topic and have a personal interest in the task. When students have fixed interests, they
tend to only pursue predetermined ideas based on that interest, but when they have growth
interests, they are open to learning about new opportunities and prepared to solve open and
62

unknown tasks (O’Keefe et al., 2018). Moreover, when GATE students are uninterested or do
not find schoolwork to be “relevant”, the result is underachievement (Webb et al., 2007, p. 63).
High self-efficacy/beliefs indicates that students work harder when they believe that they are
good at something and that their hard work will pay off. Once again, low self-efficacy in gifted
students results in underachievement (Webb et al., 2007). High attributions indicate that students
work harder when they acknowledge that their success or failure depends on their effort. This is
a contributing factor to a growth mindset, which claims that students can increase their
intellectual abilities by focusing on process, effort, strategies, and shared input (Dweck, 2015).
High partnership happens when students work harder when they view their instructor (or peer)
as more of a social partner working together with the student to learn. Emotions that impact high
motivation are indicated by students who are proud of their work and have a hopeful outlook on
their ability to succeed (Clark & Choi, 2005; Lin, 1999), which causes them to work hard on
their task. Accordingly, finding situational context and appropriate motivational connections to
the gifted learner may occur in the makers’ space context.
The opportunity to solve “relevant” problems is motivating to gifted learners (Webb et
al., 2007, p. 64) to promote a self-concept within a cross-cultural and cross-linguistic context
(Maker, 1996). There is an essential correlation between the makers’ space and interest that
affects socio-emotional needs that drive motivation in gifted students. Gifted students experience
a negative social impact due to conformity pressure when they enter fourth and fifth grade that
diminishes their curiosity, creativity, and drive (Axtell, 1966; Marcon, 1995; Torrance, 1967). To
combat this phenomena, gifted students’ CT and CreaT are increased through design tasks that
embed math, science, engineering, and art practices (Kim, 2011b). The Common Core State
63

Standards, if applied with fidelity, will address this (Lewin, 2010), and synchronize well with
makers’ space opportunities.
Makers’ spaces allow for guided learning or discovery learning where individuals use
technologies to make physical artifacts together with fellow makers (Hira & Hynes, 2018).
Typically, only the unique attributes found in gifted students, allow high-level learning and
increased creativity in a discovery environment like the makers’ space which values both
individuality and collaboration (Clark, 1982; Johnson et al., 2003; Nash, 1974). The gifted
student’s increased processing speed and transfer of knowledge set the makers’ space up as an
incubator for application of knowledge to real-world challenges (Johnson et al., 2003). Makers’
spaces promote “creative problem-solving” processes that “defer judgment” and expanded
thinking that benefit all children, especially gifted students whose OEs are symptomized by
perfectionism, passivity, and underachievement (Rimm, 2008, pp. 280–281).
Creativity-building examples of makers’ space approaches include attribute listing and
mind mapping in which students identify connections to problem-solving by identifying the
problem, the needed materials and equipment, methodology, conclusions, applications, and next
steps (Hong & Ditzler, 2013; Rimm, 2008). For gifted students, this permissive approach, which
increases cognitive load, allows their own extensive abilities to blossom through learning tasks to
enhance and enhance learning (Clark, 1982; Tuovinen & Sweller, 1999), especially when self-
regulation and learning goals are developed (Reis & Greene, 2015). In other words, gifted
students can handle a higher cognitive load without learning interference. Finally, makers’
spaces combat gifted students’ “perfectionism” and passivity by promoting a growth mindset in
which these students benefit from actively making mistakes, learning from them, persevering,
and improving on ideas (Daniels & Piechowski, 2009, p. 44).
64

Organizational Change As the Catalyst for a Maker Setting
Organization Change
In 2014, Pauline Kezer (as cited in Harley, 2018, p. 15) mused, “Continuity gives us
roots; change gives us branches, letting us stretch and grow and reach new heights.” While pure
equilibrium and balance feel safe, in the life cycle they result in death. Seventy percent of change
projects fail, but, when change can be effectively managed, there is a rate of six times increase in
success (Wong et al., 2019). Often, change is the result of a crisis, and it matters how the change
is initiated and what conditions springboard. If the constructs described so far are important for
our students and schools, then there is an equilibrium in the way that schools approach learning
that needs to be disrupted to achieve it (Burke, 2018). Kezar (2011) framed this by stating that
leaders need to protect equilibrium and homeostasis to a point. Timely actions and external
conditions that impact change should come through leader-led dialogue and collaborative self-
assessment. Kezar described incremental (first order) change that has success at a micro level
can be followed by second order change that impacts a broader part of the organization, which
may be healthier than abrupt transformational change, and the leader is the most crucial
component of that.
Stages of Change
Effective change in organizations and individuals must take place through effective
leadership. Karambelkar and Bhattacharya (2017) dichotomized organizational leadership. Burke
(2018) found that leaders need to have high energy, meet many people, work hours required to
get the work done, and energize others. In organizations, change management affects human
impact to address technical and logistic aspects. Supervisors may play a critical role in
maintaining the structure of the ecosystem around them. In the work environment, supervisors
65

cannot change everything because of the individual capacity and responsibility of each
stakeholder, but they may serve as more of a domino effect and as early problem-solvers
(Wieneke et al., 2019). Realizing that what one is teaching will prepare a student for a successful
future inherently makes one an agent of change, and to be effective, educators need to lead a
drastic shift in pedagogy and practice (Abdallah & Mohammad, 2016).
Prelaunch
Burke (2018) described these phases along with key strategies to accomplish them. First,
in the pre-launch phase, the leader needs to engage in self-examination, scan, and gather
information about the external environment impacting the organization. Burke (2018) described
the characteristics of self-awareness, motives, and values that leaders go through in the pre-
launch phase. First, self-awareness requires an aligned overlap of self-perceptions and others-
perceptions to have the agency to allow ambiguity in the process, recognize what can be
controlled and what cannot, and realize how one feels when challenged. In terms of a framework
of personality, intuitive strength is more pertinent to success than sensing. Second, motives need
to be ambitious enough to alter the status quo, align personal goals and organizational goals,
promote loyalty to the institution, and desire achievement and the power to achieve the sought-
after change. Desirable leaders’ motives derive from low-egos, maturity, future-orientation, and
they seek the advice of experts while they coach and develop staff. Third, their personal values
align with the institution’s values, and the leaders need to be part of developing a mission
statement to promote the shared ownership of these values, which creates a competitive edge
(Burke, 2018; Menchaca et al., 2003).
The next step is to analyze the external environment (Burke, 2018). In education, the
external environment may be charters, independent schools, home schools, changing policy, and
66

population. To create urgency, one has to ask if the external environment is stable, changing, or
turbulent and use it to determine if the organization is on course to be successful in five years
(Menchaca et al., 2003). Finally, to do this, the leader needs to establish a need for change and
develop a clear direction that aligns with a vision constructed by the leader’s personal vision and
that of the organization as well as communicate that, without change, the organization will not
survive. Asking about the organization’s current vision and goals, how they align with needs and
external forces and why something needs to change or why something is or is not working
contributes to required ongoing systematic assessments, team formations and conversations
(Kezar, 2011; Menchaca et al., 2003). Leaders should create a visual of their vision visual using
analogies, stories, and presentations (Burke, 2018, pp. 326–330). The pre-launch phase is
followed by the launch phase.
Launch
In the launch phase, respected leaders first need to communicate a need for change, agree
on the practices and curricula that will be implemented and provide symbolic, energizing
professional learning delivery models, modalities, and other events to advocate for the vision
(Burke, 2018, pp. 240–244). This is accomplished by a task force, resources, partnerships, and
strategies that build up the team (Menchaca et al., 2003). Finally, in the launch phase, the leaders
may need to deal with ideological resistance, and innovations may not take hold because they
conflict with the image one has of how things should work (Burke, 2018; Menchaca et al., 2003).
The leaders must understand alliances and know those who are influential. The leaders have to
consider informal ways to promote equitable processes so that people are not hurt by change
efforts (Kezar, 2011).
67

Three levels of change take place in the launch phase: individual, group, and the larger
system. With individuals, leaders should avoid imposing their ideas of change and promote
individual inclusiveness through choice on how to participate in the change. Mental models are
not enough for change, as culture and structure also have to change. There first must be self-
discovery, such as dialogues, campus summits, reading groups, and a self-examination of
history, traditions, and norms. Groups may protect their way of doing things, close ranks with
each other and demand new structure or leadership, so the leader must work to reorganize groups
or committees who make decisions, which may delay change. The larger group may adopt a
“hold out” and “this too will pass” mentality about the change which can result in a redirect to
get back to business at hand, so the leader must continue to have passion and promote the vision
with clarity. Following this phase is the post-launch.
Post-Launch
The post-launch is when things start going, and it can feel chaotic. The leader may
become ambivalent about decisions, anxious about how things are going, and feel pushback from
stakeholders. The leader should respond with equal pushback by repetitively expressing the
reasons for the change, looking for leverage to pull stakeholders out of their comfort zone and
allow creativity. Perseverance matched by consistency and actions should be layered with
multiple sources of professional learning intervention, demonstrated values, safety plans, and
interaction through committees, professional learning communities, or planning teams in which
stakeholders understand the change and then create and implement models based on those
interactions (Burke, 2018; Kezar, 2011). It is crucial to have the stakeholders come up with the
answers to reassure them and prevent avoidance behaviors such as complaining, scapegoating,
68

and blaming. Creativity and innovation will allow things to emerge. Sustaining the change
(Burke, 2018) then becomes the final level of change management.
Sustain
To sustain change, a leader needs to deal with unanticipated consequences, build
momentum, ensure shared resources (Schneider et al., 1996), launch new initiatives and
eventually choose a successor. Unforeseen consequences and surprises disturb the equilibrium
necessary for growth (Burke, 2018; Kezar, 2011). Foresight should identify how groups
incorporate the change differently, as expected champions or resistors end up taking an
unexpected role, and the desired results fail to materialize. There must be an effort to avoid
returning to the status quo. Momentum will counter the push to restore equilibrium. Ad hoc
committees may need to be disassembled and reassembled with a different focus. Identifying and
implementing new initiatives will renew energy and bring about new ideas. Third, when
considering a successor, the organization should select someone who is not a clone of the
change-leaders, a person who has fresh ideas and will continue to excite and challenge the status
quo. Finally, equilibrium must be disrupted. The leaders should ask, “Can we take what we are
already doing well and make it better?” Examples are new programs that align with the vision
along with new partnerships with other schools or community groups, or a new product that
aligns with the change vision. With this frame as a guide to organizational change, it is helpful to
utilize a systematic process to guide an organization looking for positive change.
ADKAR Model
Prosci’s Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement (ADKAR) model is a
change management process that complements project management (Karambelkar &
Bhattacharya, 2017). The model uses accessible language to assist with integration into daily
69

processes (Wong et al., 2019). It makes the steps of how people change metacognitive, which
impacts the organizational change. Hiatt (2006) outlined the model as a framework that focused
on change at the individual level. It is intended to follow a natural progression of how
individuals progress through change once it is identified.
Awareness
Awareness is recognition by an individual as to why a change needs to take place and the
consequence of not changing (Hiatt, 2006). Awareness is to be generated around the
organization’s vision, mission, values, and culture. It requires communication about the need and
people identified to support. It answers the rhetorical question, “What’s in it for me?”
(Karambelkar & Bhattacharya, 2017). This is achieved over time through frequent two-way
communication that includes brainstorming within the agents of the change. It is followed by
regular messaging venues such as forums, workshops, and visual media messages that are
intentionally communicated to stakeholders. The change team engages with stakeholders to
connect the change to the organization’s vision, respond to obfuscation, and allow time for them
to internalize the message and give feedback. Wong et al. (2019) described a 2-year process
starting with a steering committee with all stakeholders being represented. Each division or team
in the organization must be proficiently prepared and to identify areas that would be most
challenging. People need to be aware of the changes and the reasons they are important to the
goals and vision through multiple communication opportunities such as town halls, discussion,
and question-and-answer panels. This makes people aware of the changes and the reasons why
they are essential to the goals and vision (Wong et al., 2019).

70

Desire
Desire is an individual active choice to take on the change opportunity motivated by the
reason for the change to “engage” personal, “intrinsic” motivation (Hiatt, 2006, pp. 2, 128). It is
promoted through direct communication to the stakeholders to create a shared vision and active
participation followed by risk assessment, goal-focused team building and partnerships to
incentivize the change. During the desire phase, the manager should highlight opportunities and
support so the stakeholders can identify what is in it for them. It requires coaching, response to
resistance, and assurance to manage the stress of change (Karambelkar & Bhattacharya, 2017).
After there is awareness of the need to change, experts should be brought in to promote and
develop focus groups that include surveys and professional learning communities based on their
areas of expertise and interest. Stakeholders receive choice in where to move forward and what
roles to take on (Wong et al., 2019).
Knowledge
Knowledge describes “information” and professional learning about the systems, “job
aides”, pedagogy, and roles that empower the individual to implement change (Hiatt, 2006, pp. 2,
128). Knowledge is a confidence-building phase that includes professional learning and
feedback. Process, value, and expectations are built. It requires coaching, mentoring, feedback,
and training (Karambelkar & Bhattacharya, 2017). It is accomplished through intentionally
chosen instructional leaders to facilitate professional learning, coaching from supervisors and
experts, and collaborative time with peers to construct the knowledge. The leaders should
differentiate the learning teams based on interest and levels of current knowledge and familiarity
(Wong et al., 2019).

71

Ability
Ability is the “execution” of the knowledge to accomplish the change according to goals
and “performance monitoring” (Hiatt, 2006, pp. 2, 129). Ability is a capacity-building phase.
Stakeholders apply their knowledge in the capacity of their roles. Resources, time, and feedback
are needed. A collective capacity is built in this phase, which also impacts culture. It happens
through frequent, ongoing coaching in a safe space (Karambelkar & Bhattacharya, 2017). It
includes access to aspired and progress monitoring. This stage includes technical training, team
building, and collaboration, spiraled, learning over time. There must be space and ways to work
through challenges with mutual planning and feedback. Through ongoing support constructive
conversations around obstacles and misconceptions, norms, protocols, and expectations are vital
to build ability (Wong et al., 2019).
Reinforcement
This phase describes the way that change is sustained through “reinforcements” such as
performance recognitions, rewards, two-way feedback, and the personal sense of attainment and
response to “accountability” (Hiatt, 2006, pp. 3, 129). Reinforcement ensures support and
continued resources. Reinforcement is a sustainability-building phase. Stakeholders develop
accountability to the change when rewards and recognition support motivation for reinforcement
(Karambelkar & Bhattacharya, 2017). It requires coaching and advocacy. At this stage, it is
essential not to get diverted to another project (Wong et al., 2019). Availability of
troubleshooting is necessary. The leader should provide forums to discuss challenges, work
through the process with support, and strengthen team cohesion. These five phases describe the
ADKAR change management model. A project management model is also needed to establish a
complementary infrastructure.
72

Project Management
Project management is a necessary parallel to change management for there to be
effective organizational change (Karambelkar & Bhattacharya, 2017). It is made up of four
stages: requirements, design, implementation, and post-implementation. Its focus is on the
dimensions of planning: scheduling and monitoring, managing budget, scope and risks, and
merging stakeholder involvement. Requirements include timelines, goals, success indicators, and
physical resources. Design refers to how the change program is designed with milestones and
feedback. For example, organizations develop 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day plans, but flexibility
should still be allowed. Implementation identifies how to put the plan and design into action.
When stakeholders buy-in and live out the values established during the awareness phase, they
are implementing. Post-implementation includes reinforcement, feedback about what did not
work, and recognition of successful experiences.
Organizational change is outlined through the structures of organization management,
change management, and project management. It is the catalyst for the change needed to pursue
meaningful attempts to drive education into 21st century principles. Structural changes will not
take hold without addressing the psychology of the people and the feel of the organization—its
climate and culture. Climate is an organization’s goals and includes its daily business as casual
or formal, open voiced or closed. Aspects of climate include the nature of interpersonal
relationships, the nature of the hierarchy, the nature of work, and the focus of support and
rewards (Schneider et al., 1996). Climate’s four dimensions are the nature of relationships, the
nature of hierarchy, the nature of work, and the focus of support and rewards. Culture is centered
around the people’s and the organization’s beliefs and values. Culture is seen in the actions that
display the values of the organization. For example, what is rewarded, quality or quantity?
73

Climate has to change culture. It impacts the daily lived aspects of its core values not just
the changing of a mission statement. To begin change, there must be high employee morale. It
helps to ask if there have been successful changes in the past and whether tough decisions have
been made and a course of action maintained. Schneider et al. (1996) identified these five steps
to change: ensure that the four dimensions of climate are enacted, plan and communicate in
writing and in deed the goals of the change; support, reward, and identify what and how rewards
will go about; allocate resources for training and material with frequent updates on progress; and
monitor and adjust progress (Schneider et al., 1996). It leads to what people admire such as risk-
taking, innovations, routine, high-level learning, arts, quantity, and quality (Schneider et al.,
1996). This psychological aspect of change addresses the soft, less tacit elements of successful
implementation and improvement.
These models, steps, stages, and phases of change merge to make for effective
organizational change within a management system. The collaborative aspect of these structures
is schools because of the way they are governed. Very few other organizations have children as
their ultimate focus. The fluidity that comes with understanding how to educate this population
requires a diverse, collaborative approach with multiple stakeholders having a voice to meet
students’ ongoing and changing needs while conforming to policy, political forces, and
prevailing sentiment about what is crucial to true learning and skills development. It is inevitably
a crucial aspect of the framework to achieving the deep, meaningful learning that accompanies
maker education.
Conceptual Framework: Maker Confidence
Educational institutions must provide opportunities for students to ask questions or
discover things on their own (Wagner & Compton, 2012). The traditional method of teaching
74

undermines students' curiosity. This method, as well as an emphasis on grades and test scores,
works against innovation. Wagner and Compton added that education must provide a PBL
experience that combines collaboration, creativity, interaction so that students will be prepared
for the 21st century workplace.
A conceptual framework clarifies the relationships between interrelated theories
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It also makes explicit emergent or overarching assertions that result
from the research (Maxwell, 2013). In the context of an interdisciplinary atmosphere, a
conceptual framework is defined as “conceptual framework as a network, or “a plane,” of
interlinked concepts that together provide a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon or
phenomena” stemming from grounded theory (Jabareen, 2009, p. 51). The way we learn is the
foundational process interlacing all the theories that forge the conceptual map for this study.
Successful individual and group learning processes observed at the site level catalyze reflection
and start the process of change at the organizational and policy level (Black et al., 2016; Mayer,
2011).
Makers’ spaces in schools serve as an avenue of hope for the up-and-coming innovators
and makers of the world. Makers build and frame their identity in emerging CT and CreaT skills
that extend to a maker confidence through which the learner realizes the benefit of individual,
cultural, and societal talent, and ability to strive for excellence. Makers promote conversation
and communication needed to build a democratic, functioning society (Seymour, 2018).
The makers’ space is the ideal ground for the juxtaposition of CT and CreaT because it
promotes simple, practical ideas that no one has thought of yet to continually improve concepts
and solutions by collaboratively making alterations over time (Edwards, 2007). The space moves
innovation forward, and, through the knowledge gained, increases students’ motivation to drive
75

technological advances, and encourage their own learning. Through a unique approach to
learning, they promote 21st century needs by developing self-concept and agency among all
scholars (Greene et al., 2019; Seymour, 2018). The makers’ space promotes social cultural tenets
of guided practice, discourse-inclusive, inquiry-based learning, and effective norms of discourse
and practice. These norms create a safe environment for learning even when rigor, challenge and
failure are elements of that learning. They include criteria for successful construction, effective
teamwork, including communication and collaboration, as well as norms for defined CreaT and
CT. That type of learning is mastered through design-oriented, non-static, authentic, dynamic
assessment, based on end-user’s needs, that analyzes the progression of performance and product
in domain-general (a wide range of situations and content) problem-solving tasks that transfer
skills and content to new learning (Scott & Palinscar, 2006). Students will adopt a confidence
because of the situated learning opportunity of a makers’ space, seeing the fruit of their labor and
ideas, and receiving feedback about their own 21st century skills growth. This maker confidence
will empower the student in multiple content areas and multiple modalities of expression. The
student will be confident when entering each new phase of life equipped to navigate and succeed
through challenges.
Discussion
These previously discussed philosophies on creativity informed this study’s approach to
creativity and how to measure it. The Torrance Tests of Creativity (TTCT) were implemented
with the idea that the details of each construct can be measured and possibly developed over
time. Sociocultural perspectives were integrated through interviews as teachers, parents, and
administrators to join the discussion to define creativity through the lens of students’ discourse
and production over time. The approach was to see if creativity can be impacted in the individual
76

through a collaborative—sociocultural—and, for some, independent (Sawyer, 2012, p. 407)
problem-solving guided design process, called making. In this context, by incorporating what is
known about CreaT and CT and how to develop these thinking skills, educators and students will
increase their parallel thinking ability to find solutions and build on rational and non-rational,
logical, and prudent, intellectual, and value-driven ideas (de Bono, 1995) amid the setting of a
makers’ space.
My approach to this study was embedded in the worldview that guided how my
epistemology and ontology framed my view of what knowledge is, how we learn, and how it is
observed. It drew aspects from four worldviews: positivist/postpositivist, constructivist,
transformative, and pragmatism (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). From these worldviews, sought to
understand a complexity of views on learning and knowledge. This was accomplished by
constructing meaning through the literature and through interviews with the hope to generalize
an approach to education and learning. Pragmatically, approached the problem in multiple ways
and through various philosophies to examine actions in the setting of a makers’ space.
The findings may offer evidence to promote a solution to resistance to change in
organizations that want to implement shifts toward school improvement. Making change may
range from pure constructivist pedagogy to a set of activities or challenges that are inherent or
pre-programmed (Sreekanth et al., 2018) toward a design or connected learning experience
(Freigang et al., 2018). Collaborative learning, which results in a smaller group size, promotes
more active learning than lecture-based learning, although learning types may skew that based on
the individual’s needs (Sreekanth et al., 2018). My narrative experience as a maker of
educational makers’ spaces will inform and empower other educators and stakeholders to
embrace and make the effort to secure resources and buy in for revolutionary learning in our
77

schools. If we critically reflect on our practice and experiment with new tools and pedagogical
approaches in learning designs, we make decisions on improving students’ motivation and
learning outcomes (Laurillard et al., 2013).
78

Chapter Three: Method
This study was a convergent mixed-methods collection of quantitative survey,
observation, and existing assessment data, followed by qualitative survey, interview and
document data so that the qualitative interview data provided comparative insight into the
findings from the quantitative data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This study addressed the impact
of a makers’ space on the creative and CT skills of 8–11-year-old students at six elementary
school centers and whether there is a difference in that impact between students identified as
gifted and students not identified as so. In the quantitative phase of the study, the TCT and TTCT
data were collected as existing data from Anvil Elementary. The initial study would have
collected the end-of-the-year data to test thinking skills to assess whether makers’ space
activities relate to CT and CreaT; however, the COVID closure prevented the end-of-the-year
assessments. The second phase was conducted as a follow-up and to help explain the quantitative
results, which also included survey data. The study was based on three research questions:
1. How does an elementary makers’ space reveal the creative thinking and critical thinking
skills of upper-grade elementary students?
2. Is there a difference in an elementary makers’ space’s impact on the creative thinking
skills and the critical thinking skills between unidentified and identified gifted students?
3. What is it about an elementary makers’ space, particularly motivation, that contributes to
the development of critical thinking and creative thinking outcomes?
An examination of motivation provides depth to the findings since it accounts for nearly
half of transferring or applying what is learned (Clark & Saxberg, 2018). Motivation correlates to
students’ engagement in the task(s) to attain the knowledge and goals in the situated context of a
makers’ space (Clark, 2015). In this explanatory follow-up, the qualitative data gave depth and
79

insight to explain students’ motivation, CreaT, and CT through the perspectives of teachers, lab
facilitators, and administrators.
Assessments and Measures
This study combined quantitative and qualitative data to uncover richer conceptual
inferences applicable to future approaches. A mixed-methods approach (see Appendix A
methodology diagram) provided a more in-depth, robust understanding of the research questions
at hand (Chatterji, 2005; Stentz et al., 2012). Quantitative data were collected by surveying the
educators in the participating organizations. A survey is a valid approach to identifying trends,
expert beliefs, and conclusions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Via a clustering procedure in
coordination with lead administrators to identify sites, surveys were sent via the Qualtrics
platform to individuals in those organizations (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The surveys (see
Appendix B and Appendix C for the questions) contained Likert-style prompts in which
participants ranked whether the item in the prompt was observed never, seldom, sometimes, most
of the time, or always. Each response was assigned points and coded to CT and CreaT, its
subcomponents, as well as motivation and its subcomponents. Surveys asked respondents to
score both subgroups of students, unidentified students, and GATE students, as applicable.
Interviews were held with participants who were in positions to represent and to respond to
questions that they contextualized to either primarily unidentified students, primarily GATE, and
in some cases to both when they utilized a cluster model. Observations were held with data
recorded on both identified and unidentified students. Documents were segregated based on the
school model. In other words, documents from GATE schools were represented as GATE data
and primarily undesignated schools’ documents represented unidentified students. Identified
80

GATE students in this study were identified primarily based on intelligence, cognitive ability,
and high-ability factors.
While contributing to data inference, the quantitative data provide only one perspective
of the study’s research problem. Although quantitative data may offer generalizations, the survey
and follow-up interviews assisted in determining whether the makers’ space intervention had an
impact on the constructs being studied and observed. Qualitative data were triangulated through
observations, interviews, surveys, and documents (lesson plans, timelines, frameworks, and
photos) to identify participants’ meanings and emerging patterns and phenomena to contribute to
inductive and deductive analysis (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Qualitative methods represented
constructivist theory wherein an understanding of the construct is obtained inductively. There
was a focus on specific situations or people and descriptions to recognize and understand how
the participants made sense of the physical events and how their understanding influenced their
behavior (Maxwell, 2013). The data are represented through text or graphics as a springboard for
transformative practice.
Observations of maker sessions (Appendix D) were used to collect data on the students’
maker experiences in action followed by a rating of the CT and CreaT constructs using an
expertise scale adapted from that of Shively et al. (2018). This type of observation without
participation is useful with minors who may not be able to provide valid responses to the
constructs but may also reduce the quality of insight that accompanies verbal interaction
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018; McEwan-Adkins & McEwan, 2003). Open-ended survey prompts
and interviews enhanced the data obtained through observations by providing clarity of actions
taken during lessons, insights into the history of the students, and insights missed during
observations but may have limitations due to the researcher’s or interviewee’s bias toward or
81

against the ideas and constructs being studied (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; McEwan-Adkins &
McEwan, 2003). The number of observations that were scheduled did not take place due to the
COVID school closures, which resulted in only being able to observe the initial sessions of a task
that typically played out over three sessions. Had I been able to observe the subsequent sessions
there may have been richer, relevant data on some of the subcomponents of CreaT and CT that
require more time to observe.
The document analysis filled in details missing from the interviews and surveys. It
enriched the data through the participants’ thoughtful visual meaning and use of language
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018; McEwan-Adkins & McEwan, 2003). Qualitative research is
interested in how meaning is constructed and how people make sense of their lives and worlds
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Sample and Population
I partnered with public and independent schools in California and Arizona with makers’
spaces and variations on heterogenous and homogeneous gifted classrooms. The participants
were selected because they have demonstrated enthusiasm and believe in the significance of
these spaces. These participants are more likely to respond positively and participate in
purposeful sampling (Johnson & Christensen, 2020). Participants educated elementary students
in the 8–11-year-old age range, some identified as gifted students and some who were not
(unidentified).
I conducted observations. Additionally, my anecdotal records from my own experiences,
discussions, observations, and informal surveys provided explanatory data of the students’
demonstration of motivation, CT, CreaT, and organizational management. During observations,
frequency counting of actions, words and phrases related to CT, CreaT, and motivation was used
82

to support the reliability of the qualitative data (Fife, 2021; Mayer, 2011). In other words, while
every attempt was made to anchor the observations, I brought my own worldview biases into the
observation and data recording.
Counting words, actions, and product as a means of content analysis worked to
streamline the data to make them more reliable. There was a heavier weight assigned to the
manifest content while leaving room for latent content: the implicit, unsaid meaning that each
observer brings to the context of the conversations, actions and products based on their
background and worldview (Shortell, n.d.). Elementary students in the 8–11-year-old age range
were chosen as the population most likely to have had the opportunity to be identified as gifted,
and their age level is also ideal for obtaining assessment data. These students had access to
regular participation in a makers’ space.
The schools’ locations are in urban and suburban areas with both high-SES and low-SES
underserved populations who deserve motivating experiences that promote CT and CreaT. I posit
that CT and CreaT instruction should be available to all students and perceive this study to be an
opportunity to inform policy and action in that direction. Since both CT and CreaT are
fundamental in developing 21st century global problem-solvers and, further, represent the goals
of gifted curriculum, then the measure of their growth to inform future practice and assessment is
necessary (Shively et al., 2018). In turn, this sets the stage for the replication of effective
programs that purposefully build CT and CreaT.
Instrumentation
Quantitative
Likert-style survey data provided insight into behavior as evidence of CT, CreaT, and
motivation (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995). Additionally, objective measurements were used to assess
83

deliberate practice, motivational factors, and achievement factors (Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2016).
I obtained data on existing levels of CT and CreaT. Assessments already existed at Anvil,
including the TCT and the TTCT. The TCT was developed at the College of William and Mary
(Bracken et al., 2003). It is a 45-question multiple-choice assessment based on responses to 10
stories with a target grade range of third through fifth grade. The reliability and validity of the
TCT were assessed using a sample of students participating in a federally funded project.
Internal consistency coefficients for each grade level ranged from .80 to .82. A significant gender
difference was reported by Bracken, with females slightly outperforming males. Pairing
correlations were all significant, with a range between .25 to .63. The TCT utilized psychometric
properties, theoretically based constructs, and it was designed to be a comprehensive research
assessment tool to evaluate CT in third through fifth grade students objectively (Bracken et al.,
2003). It has been used effectively to assess the growth of CT in both general education and
gifted students in diverse urban populations and low-SES students (Bland et al., 2010).
The TTCT has two components, figural and verbal. Torrance intended for the test to
assist with personalizing instruction for students at any ability level (Kim, 2011b). The verbal
TTCT breaks down into three subscale scores, fluency, flexibility, and originality (Clapham,
2004). Fluency is one of the most critical aspects of the test because the other scores depend on
their relevance to fluency (Torrance, 2008). Originality is what one frequently thinks of when
visualizing creativity. On the assessment, it refers to the creative ability to develop unique,
unusual, and exciting ideas that are statistically infrequent, which only a small group otherwise
would have suggested. It includes uniquely adding onto an existing idea, and expositing details
and improvements to one’s imaginative ideas. As for predictive validity, TTCT scores have been
significantly correlated with creative achievement (Torrance & Wu, 1981). The TTCT-F manual
84

of 1998 provided a range between .89 and .94 for the internal reliability of the items in the
creative index. The interrater reliability for the test was reported to be above .90. Test-retest
reliabilities and alternate form reliabilities range from .59 to .97 (Reynolds & Fletcher-Janzen,
2007). It was identified to be psychometrically sound and a strong predictor for creative abilities
(r = .33) over time (Kim, 2011b). Other researchers have challenged the TTCT for lacking
predictive validity based on problems with students’ self-reporting of creativity and because
scores may be raised with training (Plucker, 1999). Kim (2011a) countered the criticisms noting
that self-reporting is not necessary, and that training is not a fair criticism since the goal may be
to increase creativity through training or an intervention. The same review determined that the
TTCT is applicable for determining creativity levels across disciplines.
Qualitative
The data were collected through interviews, observations, and documents and were
analyzed inductively to address the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
interviews and observation protocols are in Appendices B through D.
Data Collection
Pragmatic
I employed the pragmatism model for this study. To meet the complexity of the research
questions, a flexible and practical design guided the decisions within the context of the study.
The goal was to pursue purposeful, practical, contextually susceptive choices and meaningful
results (Datta, 1997). Pragmatist researchers look to the what and the how of the object of the
research formulated on intended consequences (Creswell, 2014). This study’s design choices
aided in drawing inferences and deductions pertaining to the research questions. Relevant to
aspects of my pragmatic/transformative worldview, the outcome of the study among an
85

underserved population may result in an action agenda for reform and policy change that will
guide future curricula, teacher induction programs, and professional development on making,
CT, and CreaT pedagogy (Creswell, 2014).
Qualitative
Participants responded to open-ended scripted survey questions between the quantitative
pre and post-tests. I transcribed and coded responses using various code types (Saldaña, 2015).
These include structural codes relating to the research questions (RQs), theory-driven codes
derived from the literature, and emergent codes. Additionally, concept codes related to mindset
and construct, descriptive codes that contributed to theory-driven codes were incorporated with
process codes that enriched how results were attained. The qualitative instruments followed the
quantitative instruments to expand on items discovered and to validate the quantitative data. To
address validity for the qualitative portion for trustworthiness, authenticity, and credibility, I
triangulated the data; clarified biases; used detailed descriptions; presented any negative or
discrepant information; employed peer debriefing; and documented all procedures along with
steps for each procedure (Creswell, 2014).
Quantitative
Anvil students took the TTCT and the TCT at the beginning of the year. The TCT was
hand-scored, and scores were aligned to students by anonymous codes. The Scholastic Testing
Service scored the TTCT.
Data Analysis
“Descriptive”, aspects of phenomena, and “interpretive”, how it unfolds, analyses were
based on the literature review and theoretical framework (Elliott & Timulak, 2005, pp. 148–149)
of qualitative data. In this, I will describe phenomena and their varieties and interpret how the
86

phenomena unfold. The analysis consisted of the data organization into qualitative and
quantitative data aligned to four data buckets, surveys, interviews, observations, and document
collection. I extracted qualitative data from existing school data, Likert-style surveys, code
tables, and rubric analysis of observations. Qualitative data were gathered from open ended
surveys, interviews, observations, and documents. After participants responded to surveys, I
synthesized and downloaded the data using Qualtrics software.
I analyzed both data sets independently. Qualitatively, I approached the findings
phenomenologically. I analyzed responses to interview and survey questions to determine the
essence of motivation, CT, and CreaT in an elementary makers’ space (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). I performed an initial scan on all qualitative data. Then, I applied “initial coding”
(Saldaña, 2015, p. 11) of the data through NVivo12 qualitative data analysis software. The initial
coding included provisional coding of the a priori codes based on the constructs detailed in the
literature and in the TCT and TTCT manuals. I further analyzed data through conceptual coding
according to emerging themes and refined synthesis of some of the a priori codes and the
literature descriptions of CreaT, CT, and motivation. “In Vivo coding” (Saldaña, 2015, p. 8) of
quotes was done to capture statements by interview participants and survey respondents of a
compelling nature that captured the essence of the maker experience.
Further reads took place to merge codes to move toward descriptive themes. I used
thematic annotations and analytic memos that emerged from that data and interpreted data that
aligned to my theoretical framework. I used spreadsheets to organize the four data collection
buckets’ most relevant quotes and generalizations. This system was used further to interpret
intersections of themes and the influence that themes and codes had when I analyzed data
buckets and participants’ roles in the theoretical framework and emerging themes. The
87

interpretations following this process are the results chapter. I formed “grounded theory”
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 13, 248) based on the “emergent themes” and findings (Saldaña,
2015, p. 56) as it related to the core categories of giftedness and the relationship between maker
learning and the focus constructs of CreaT, CT, and motivation.
Descriptive quantitative analysis of existing data, surveys, and observation rubrics
resulted in data that connected the literature to observed performance levels on students’ CreaT
and CT in the makers’ space. Quantitative survey data served as the exploratory aspect of the
data analysis. It gave me a sense of starting points for students’ thinking skill abilities based on
assessment performance and educator assessment of the constructs of this study. This data
provided insights into variances between the educator roles in this study and the existing data.
They were used to compare the beginning-of-the-year abilities of some of the students to the
educators’ expert perceptions of the impact made on these constructs at the end of the maker
space intervention. Survey participants were recruited via conversations with district
superintendents, school headmasters, and principals. At the district level, the superintendent
engaged in a 45 minute conversation and approximately five email exchanges, which allowed me
to share the study’s focus and the ideal school site. As a result, I identified Bevel and Chisel
Elementary for their makers’ space programs and varied approach to gifted education. The Anvil
Elementary and Driller Elementary headmasters identified educators to participate based on the
knowledge base and enthusiasm that those educators had for curriculum and maker education.
The administrator of Edger Elementary offered select educators at the school to participate based
on the effectiveness of those educators at integrating classrooms in the makers’ space. Not all
educators who were offered to take the survey responded. Fastener Elementary represented
educators whose majority focus was on maker education.
88

Observations of sessions in the makers’ spaces were another aspect of the behavioral data
analysis. Approximately 10 observations took place in the spring of 2020. The data from
observations were coded and analyzed descriptively and interpretively. Additionally, I took
descriptive quantitative data from the observations. In each observation, I evaluated a score of
novel, developing, or expert on the Shively et al. (2018) CreaT and CT rubric. Due to the
COVID-19 school closures, only three observations of full class sessions in on-site elementary
maker spaces were conducted. These three different classes were observed at two different
participating school sites: Anvil Elementary and Bevel Elementary. The classes that were
observed were made up heterogeneously of identified gifted and unidentified students, the
majority being unidentified students. During the COVID-19 school closures, I conducted three
observations of virtual maker sessions involving the same GATE student. Those sessions were a
one-to-one session between maker facilitators from Fastener Elementary and the student who
was previously verified as eligible for the district’s school gifted programs. In all, six observation
sessions were conducted by me, and the remaining observations data were described and
evaluated by participants. Some observational data was taken from those descriptions, including
two CT and CreaT rubric scores by those educators. Pintrich and Schunk (2002) recommend
observing active choice, persistence, and mental effort in determining motivation. I chose the
observation and interview protocols to identify components of motivation, including students’
commitment and effort (Clark, 2015) as evidenced by goal setting, emotional response, personal
task value, interest, and mood. Measuring self-efficacy and self-concept may predict value to
academic success, making this a valid way to determine its impact on CT and CreaT (Bong et al.,
2012). The information culled from the quantitative set was used to build the qualitative open-
ended survey questions. Clark and Choi (2005) identified outcome factors as necessary for
89

determining the effectiveness of agents. This study included the makers’ space components of
motivation, conceptual understanding of process and problem-solving measures that provided
both near—similar problems—and far—novel problems—transfer to measure cognitive
outcomes.
Ten of the participants submitted documents and included images of maker space
projects, lesson plans, philosophy of education statements, vision and mission statements,
diagrams of labs and student movement patterns in the maker space during sessions.
Additionally, photos from public social media and websites were included in the document
analysis. Participants enthusiastically and voluntarily submitted the documents for data analysis.
The participants shared a common pride in both the work produced by their students and the
progress toward fulfilling a mission that they believe can be achieved through maker education.
Clark and Choi (2005) recommended that the impacting agent correlated to the findings.
In the case of this study, the claim is that the makers’ space is the compelling agent for the
knowledge, motivation and learning outcomes as evidenced by CT and CreaT. At the same time,
the facilitator’s practice requires consideration as an influence on these factors, necessitating the
qualitative input. Upon completing the analysis, a discussion will ensue to explain if and how the
qualitative data amplify and bolster the quantitative results. (Creswell, 2014). The school-based
validity of this study’s measurement designs and questionnaires align with similar research on
cognitive and non-cognitive skills that involve tasks, design, innovation in a short- and medium-
term manner (Duckworth & Yeager, 2015). This approach to data and resulting analysis may
inform future design and practices of educational makers’ spaces. Lastly, I applied descriptive
analysis to denote trends from the quantitative data. The qualitative data were transcribed, coded,
and grouped by related themes.
90

Challenges and Limitations
The challenges and limitations of this approach included time constraints: approximately
four months to begin and conclude the research. The sample in this research may not have
achieved saturation in that time constraints prevented opportunities to expand the study to other
districts and schools. At the same time, elementary makers’ spaces are uncommon, and the
sample participant size was sufficiently deep and complex to make judgments applicable to
findings. I requested access to summative, criterion-referenced, and norm-referenced data for
each student in the sample. This existing data set was received from one of the participating
schools, Anvil Elementary. These data were beginning-of-the-year data that included CT, CreaT,
and aptitude assessments which were given to the fourth-grade students. The school intended to
conclude the year with post-testing of the students; however, school closures due to COVID-19
precluded testing. These data will be shared and discussed as a baseline. The existing
quantitative measurements took place during the first month of the school year and the post-tests
were to take place in the spring. Observations of students occurred when the students were in the
makers’ space. Interviews of teachers took place in the spring and summer of 2020. I selected
two public elementary sites with a mix of gifted and non-gifted upper elementary students and
public schools designated as gifted only schools and two independent schools that did not have
official gifted identification processes. I anticipated the following threats to internal validity:
selection—non-random sample—and maturation—students may develop CT through means
other than the study curricula. As a result of these limitations, findings are not generalizable to
all K–5 students in all settings.

91

Chapter Four: Findings
This chapter will present the results of the study. The data will reveal details and themes
to determine the value that an elementary makers’ space had on the level of students’ thinking
skills and learning. The data addressed the three RQs that guided the research and data analysis.
These data were examined through four categories: (a) surveys; (b) interviews; (c) observations;
and (d) documents. The results will be explained through a non-sequential explanatory
verification approach to identify the highest-scoring elements of the a priori codes from the
surveys and observations, and then explore those results through qualitative a priori and
emergent) concepts and themes. The RQs were modified because of the COVID-19 school
closures to a mixed-method emphasis on a qualitative approach. I will describe the data
collection process and participant identification for all RQs, followed by the overall results,
themes, and conclusions for each. Three questions guided this study:
1. How does an elementary makers’ space reveal the creative thinking and critical thinking
skills of upper-grade elementary students?
2. Is there a difference in an elementary makers’ space’s impact on the creative thinking
skills and the critical thinking skills between unidentified and identified gifted students?
3. What is it about an elementary makers’ space, particularly motivation, that contributes to
the development of critical thinking and creative thinking outcomes?
Participants
Creswell and Creswell (2018) noted the importance of being purposeful in selecting
participants for quality insights. I sought educators who were familiar with makers’ spaces and
had expertise in gifted education. The respondents for the survey were selected by the
administrators for each of the six schools. Given the COVID-19 closures, the study was amended
92

due to the inability to carry out observations. To obtain more data for triangulation and
credibility, interviews were added to the study, and the breadth of survey respondents was
expanded to Driller, Edger, and Fastener Elementary Schools. All the survey respondents were
invited to participate in the follow-up interviews. Interview participants by their pseudonyms are
listed in Appendix E, Table E1. Of those, Becky, Connie, and Cate were interviewees who did
not participate in the surveys. The remaining interviewees participated in the surveys.
Interviewees
I recruited nine participants from Southern California and Arizona (three administrators,
two lab facilitators, and four teachers), plus another four participants (two teachers and two
administrators) who were part of my exploratory interview data. The total number of
interviewees was 10. The demographics of the interviewees (Table E1) indicated that the
majority of the participants were primarily from public schools, Caucasian, female, and had over
20 years of experience in education.
Survey Respondents
The respondents represented teachers, lab facilitators, and administrators from two
independent schools, two public GATE schools, and two public heterogeneous schools. The
number of survey respondents was 22: six administrators, six lab facilitators, and 10 teachers.
The survey participants were selected by administrators who sent the survey to the teachers at
their school who were invested in their makers’ space and who regularly integrated it into their
curriculum. On one hand, these educators would be more informed to be able to evaluate their
students to respond to the survey questions. On the other hand, they may have unknowingly
scored the survey items higher because they believed in the importance of the makers' space and
want to advance it. The educators’ level of expertise is relevant to the credibility of the responses
93

to questions pertaining to GATE students— detailed in RQ2. Half of them identified as having at
least significant expertise.
The survey respondents were asked to rate the level of importance that the
maker/design/innovation lab had on the learning, future career, and entrepreneurial opportunities
for their students (Table E2). Two-thirds of the participants reported that maker learning was at
least very important to their future success. The majority of the classrooms identified as
“heterogeneously combined identified and unidentified gifted,” while just under a third of the
classrooms were “primarily gifted” students. The majority of the educators of primarily gifted
and heterogeneous classes viewed the makers’ space to be of high importance, in terms of future
success, while the educators of primarily unidentified classrooms were split between low and
high importance scores. Those primarily unidentified schools also tended to, similar to low-SES
schools, focus their funding on intervention and remediation. It is notable that of those same
rankings, there was a gap between the responses of the low- and high-SES schools. The
educators at the high-SES schools saw the makers’ spaces as much more important to their
students’ future success than those at low-SES schools.
Existing data was received from Anvil Elementary. These data included the beginning-of-
the-year results of CreaT and CT from students in two fourth-grade classrooms using the TCT,
the Comprehensive Testing Program, and the TTCT (Table E3, Table E5). These assessments
evaluated the overall CT and CreaT skills of the students as a composite of both the norm-
referenced and criterion-referenced subcategories of the two constructs. These thinking skills
were broken down into sub-criteria. The thinking skills and the sub-criteria paralleled the
descriptors in the Likert-style quantitative survey question given to the participants. The survey
used a 1–5 scale in which never scored as a 1, seldom scored as a 2, sometimes scored as a 3,
94

most of the time scored as a 4, and always scored as a 5. The descriptors were also used to guide
the open-ended survey and follow-up interview questions. In this way triangulation of these two
data sets was the result of comparing the data with the other data sets’ observations and
documents. This achieved a complex synthesis of the impact that these elementary makers’
spaces had on these 8–11-year-old students. According to the participants, the majority of the
students were ethnically diverse populations, and, in the interviews, they expressed how
important (Table E2) the maker learning (Figure 3) experience was for diverse populations to be
able to access the skills and constructs that were researched in this study. The educators were at
above moderate levels for gifted expertise and with a mean of just under 16 years of experience
(SD = 7.970) working with the target age range of students in the study.

Figure 3
Concept of Maker Learning

95

Determination of Results
The themes discussed in the results come out of initial descriptive, a priori codes, and
frameworks derived from the literature review that relate to the definitions of the constructs
creative thinking (CreaT), critical thinking (CT), and motivation. Additional interpretive codes
and themes emerged out of the qualitative analysis as well as phenomena-based essence themes.
These emerging codes were maker mindset, constructionism, design thinking process, educators
moves, GATE specific, COVID context, and InVivo codes of quotes by participants that
revealed the essence of the maker experience. It also uncovered the power of maker learning to
prepare the learners to be flexible to transfer the skills, techniques, and thinking processes that
they developed in the makers’ space to a vastly different setting and context in the home and on
the laptop. The complete codebook of all nodes, child nodes, descriptions, files, and references,
downloaded from NVivo 12, can be found in Appendix F. I will focus on the most impactful
subcomponents for CreaT, CT, and motivation based on what emerged through the synthesis of
the four data buckets.
Survey Data
Surveys were administered to 22 educators who volunteered to participate and identified
as nine teachers, seven lab facilitators, and six administrators who were active in their school’s
makers’ space program. This approach was made in an effort to validate the findings via
verification steps that (a) aligned questions with the literature, (b) attempted to achieve saturation
in the participants by the representation of roles and experience, (c) sought a rigorous iterative
process between what was known about the concepts and what I needed to know in order to
validate or invalidate assumptions made about the impact of the makers’ spaces, (d) matched
emerging ideas to the data, and (e) developed the progression of theory and concept development
96

in order to generalize for transferability based on outcomes of the research process, and as a
springboard for further development and inquiry of the concepts (Morse et al., 2002).
Quantitative (Likert-style) and qualitative (open-ended) surveys of educators were
conducted, and existing assessment data of students was collected from Anvil. Administrators
who agreed to include their schools in the study described their participating teachers as
“enthusiastic” and “sold on” maker learning and makers’ spaces.
Interview Data
Interviews were conducted to gather from participants attitudinal data aligned with the
three RQs. Eleven of the 14 interviewees also participated in the survey. Most of the questions
were asked in person over the virtual platforms Zoom or Google Hangouts using the questions
by role from Appendix C. One interview with Becky was exploratory to learn about the district’s
GATE program and identification procedures. Connie and Cate’s interviews were transcribed
from existing recordings on the school’s website. Frieda participated only in the exploratory
Google Doc virtual questions.
Observation Data
The observations that were completed at Anvil, Bevel, and Fastener reflect four different
maker tasks, but in the same maker context. Appendix G provides descriptions of the maker
tasks by school for additional context. Although the specific tasks were different, they all
reflected the same approach, maker learning, which represents the intervention I am studying for
its impact on learning. The administrators selected the classrooms. The administrators chose
teachers who were invested in the maker program and who regularly participated in the makers’
space to participate in the observations. The observations contributed significantly to my
findings because they demonstrated that students construct their knowledge and wisdom through
97

the problem-solving process. Milner (2003) confirmed the approach that individuals need to
construct knowledge through authentic problem-solving.
Document Analysis
Documents were analyzed for each of the a priori codes and some of the emergent codes
for the first three RQs. Documents were voluntarily submitted by the participants and collected
from the participants’ websites and social media sites. The documents included photos,
screenshots from digital platforms, schedules, posters, lesson plans, and presentations. The
document data revealed themes that aligned with the already existing conceptual framework and
also revealed nuanced insight into the phenomena that surfaced from the impact of the makers’
spaces on the students' learning.
RQ1: How Does an Elementary Makers’ Space Reveal the Creative Thinking and Critical
Thinking Skills of Upper-Grade Elementary Students?
The intent of RQ1 is to determine if there are aspects of maker learning in an elementary
school that have an impact on the CreaT and CT of the students participating in those tasks.
Creative Thinking
The a priori codes were coded in NVivo 12 as nodes along with emerging codes and child
nodes as sub-codes. The ratings of the priori codes for CreaT (Figure 4) based on the Torrance
Test for Creative Thinking subcomponents (Appendix H) are represented in the total CreaT
mean reported by the educators (Table E5 and Table E6). These themes and codes will be
discussed so that the quantitative survey data explains and elucidates the interview, observation,
and document data.

98

Figure 4
Creativity Conceptualized by Subcomponents

Note. Adapted from Torrance® Test of Creative Thinking by E. Paul Torrance, Interpretive
Manual (pp. 3–4), Copyright 2018 by Scholastic Testing Service.

Creative Thinking Overall
Many subcomponents of CreaT emerged from the data while also elucidating the a priori
codes and themes. I am going to discuss originality, elaboration, and creative strategies as the
subcomponents that emerged in the data to suggest the highest impact on CreaT through
students’ participation in makers’ spaces. In this way, CreaT was observed and described by the
99

educator experts and also observed in the actions of the students. These three elements of
creativity were represented in all four data areas, and they aligned with processes of creative
problem space creativity which occur in a general domain environment such as a makers’ space.
These are (a) recognition of an existing problem, (b) production of a number and variety of
relevant ideas, (c) recognition of a variety of relevant outcomes, and (d) using evidence that
leads to the drawing of appropriate solutions (Lin, 2017). Fluency refers to the quantity of
relevant creative ideas. Although fluency was the highest-scoring subcomponent in surveys,
observations, as well as the most coded node, the number of ideas produced in the makers’ space
were embedded through the other CreaT subcomponents. Moreover, the analysis of fluency data
from the four data areas, and the results were that the situational context of the open-ended, task-
based, discovery design process of makers’ spaces resulted in high creative fluency. As a result
of data analysis, elaboration, specific strategy, flexibility, and fluency were the most coded
components of the CreaT construct theme which were coded 1,408 times in total. Students were
observed to demonstrate a total CreaT rating of high developing/approaching expert (Table 3).
Their total CreaT score, as rated by the educators meant that students on the average displayed
the components of CreaT most of the time while they were in the makers’ space. The
subcomponents fluency, originality, creative strategies, and flexibility were the highest areas on
the observation rubric of which students demonstrated expert ability in fluency and originality.
Fluency, originality, and flexibility were also the highest-rated subcomponents based on the
educators’ survey. Even though elaboration was revealed to be higher for most of the data, it
scored lower on observations. Usefulness rated the lowest on the educators survey, while
resistance to premature closure, followed as the second-lowest score. Additionally, the highest
creative strengths observed in the makers’ products were fantasy, humor, and colorfulness of
100

projects. The overall rating from the survey indicated that CreaT was observed more than most
of the time by students working in the makers’ space (Table 4). The lowest of those overall
ratings was from the lab facilitators. The CreaT quantitative scores were strongly aligned across
the qualitative data sets.
Finally, multiple data during the interviews and observations suggest that overall CreaT
may not have occurred at such a high level without purposeful materials and tools. 378 words
from a word query from the singular code materials revealed the breadth of common materials
available to make with. The totality of terms emphasized the focus on the “reuse and recycle”
theme highlighted by Fanny. The top five counted terms were cardboard (179), plastic (179),
pieces (136), paper (120), and glue (82).

Table 3
Creativity Observation Scores by Subcomponent and Total Compiled Score Based on the Shively
et al. (2018) Rubric
CreaT component Mean SD
Total 2.37 0.490
Fluency 2.71 0.333
Flexibility 2.22 0.561
Originality 2.64 0.391
Elaboration 2.21 0.337
Usefulness 2.06 0.573
Specific creativity strategy 2.36 0.391

Note. 1 = novice, 2 = developing, 3 = expert
101

Table 4
Educator Survey of Students’ Overall CreaT in the Maker Lab Comparison by Educator Role
Construct/Educator role Creativity SD
Teacher (N = 9) 4.19 0.834
Lab facilitator (N = 7) 4.14 0.378
Administrator (N = 6) 4.33 0.816
Overall (N = 22) 4.21 0.726

Creative Thinking: Originality
According to Torrance (1962c), low originality reflects trite, banal, common ideas. High
ability in this subcomponent suggests that the maker demonstrated highly imaginative ideas and
designs and requires delayed gratification and high intellectual energy.
Originality: Surveys Results. In the survey, originality scored 4.04 (out of 5), which
was the second-highest among the subcomponents, behind fluency and ahead of abstractness of
titles. According to the rubric, this indicated that the educators observed students demonstrating
this CreaT skill most of the time in the maker space. Teachers and lab facilitators rated the
subcomponent nearly equally. Evelyn shared that “a pair of students” used an inquiry approach
to making by taking “a look at how a person's confidence in math affects their ability to create
art.” She also said, “One group wanted to make a huge snowplow the size of the paper that
would attach to their Ozobot so they could just plow the snow in one sweep.” Some of the
original ideas and designs included a skyscraper challenge wherein students used engineering
and architectural skills to construct a building that withstood a simulated hurricane. Fanny
elaborated that “one group of students built a spherical structure. I thought it was really
interesting that instead of trying to shield their structure from the wind, they build the structure to
102

move with it, and therefore avoid [external] damage.” The majority of respondents noted that the
collaborative exchange of ideas that was communicated among team members promoted the
iterative process that made these original ideas possible.
Originality: Interviews Results. The majority of participants described multiple ways in
which students’ own interests drove unusually imaginative responses. Evelyn noted that “they
always do it in a different way than I expect and it's always so much better.” A team at Edger
working with Ellen used its task “measured movement” to design a “wearable” device to track
data using an “accelerometer” and a “micro-bit” for an “injured gymnast” going through
“physical therapy.” Not all students demonstrated originality all of the time and teachers
recognized their role in that. Allen lamented that teams in the “30-second timer” challenge may
have had their originality stifled by a picture of an hourglass that was given to them despite the
variety of materials that the teams used to make their timers, including “solo cups and tape… put
together to be like an hourglass,” or “cones being used as an hourglass with tubing.” They made
“the same thing everyone did, which did not feel original or creative.” In other words, the
educator recognized that an important aspect about makers’ spaces was that the educator should
lead and guide with criteria and leave the final construction in their creative hands.
Participants pointed out that making can still have the same impact on CreaT in a virtual
setting. They observed originality during their virtual Maker Faire (Edger). Compared to the in-
person version Evelyn stated that “it was the same kind of thing ... allowing the kids to explore
their interests and finding the content behind it.” Others used their coding skills and “coded their
own game,” while another student “created their own website to explain to people how viruses
and bacteria were different, linking biology with the animal in its animal kingdom.” These data
103

demonstrated that originality was evident during the virtual maker learning which continued an
inquiry-based approach.
Originality: Observations Results. Students demonstrated evidence of originality an
overall 2.65 out of 3. This indicated that students in the maker lab were at the lower expert level
for creative originality. In the observations data, students demonstrated both high and moderate
originality that had to do with responses that were either unique and highly imaginative or that
were also common or trite. Originality in the maker space was influenced by educator moves to
transfer of knowledge from prior learning, interdisciplinary thinking, and by students’ ability to
develop and incorporate empathy for the targeted user audience. Allen shared, “I saw confidence
and novelty in their solutions to the problem, where they included something in their drawing
that I didn't expect.” In their maker task, the students were asked to argue their case for the best
19th Century Spanish diseño design to the governor by designing a mapped blueprint with an
accompanying persuasive letter simulating authentic venturist situations. One of the teams
extended the criteria with symbolic Catholic sculpture incorporated into their map design.
Musing at how the team turned what was intended to be a literary element into a unique visual
element to better catch the governor’s attention the teacher said, “that was something that I
thought oh I wouldn't have included that on my map…[but] he interpreted it as “hey we can add
this to our farm because it'll help the governor (who will only give the land to Catholic people)
see our design as better.” The teacher credited the staggered information reveal of the task’s
design as an opportunity to bring out the team’s nonconformity (originality).
Originality: Documents Results. Document analysis resulted in originality coded 27
times. Originality in the use of materials, techniques, in construction, was evident in the
documents seen in Appendix I. Jamestown models from Edger (Figure I1) elucidated the way in
104

which students used materials. The students used a combination of materials to construct a
realistic representation of the inside of a Native American Jamestown dwelling along with a
cross-section view of the building. In the (Figure I2) scene of a longhouse, originality is
represented in the choice and use of available materials. The two men were constructed out of
recycled cloth and paper. The totem pole was a log hot-glued into the base. The pole had a face
on it in which the eyes, nose, and mouth were painted on with hot glue. The earth was created by
a flour mixture. The unidentified pole was a clear glue stick. The longhouse was made of
popsicle sticks hot-glued together. This demonstrated how artistic form and function in the
dwelling construction resulted in an authentic demonstration of content mastery.
Evidence of originality was represented in all four data collection modes demonstrating
originality through educator moves, availability of materials, inquiry, constraints (time,
materials) put on the process, and the collaborative and communicative aspects of the maker
mindset.
Creative Thinking: Elaboration
Elaboration refers to the creative ability to exposit details and improvements to other
imaginative ideas. High ability in this subcomponent means that the maker added many
significant ideas and improvements to their construction. Elaboration was the lowest score on the
students’ beginning-of-the-year TTCT scores at Anvil, thus demonstrating the highest increase
following the makers’ space sessions (Table E3).
Elaboration: Surveys Results. In the survey elaboration scored 3.92 (out of 5), which
was fourth, behind originality and ahead of flexibility. This indicated that the educators observed
students demonstrating this CreaT skill most of the time in the maker space. teachers rated the
subcomponent one-tenth higher than lab facilitators. Anvil1 (a teacher respondent) revealed that
105

the “iterative process” and “Shark Tank” (Ellen) style tasks offered students the opportunities to
elaborate by “creating prototypes and promoted hypothesizing about them, test the prototype,
redesign, etcetera,” shared Frieda. Students demonstrated elaboration by constructing parks,
paper airplanes, and historical ranchos. “Others took an idea and built upon it making something
completely brand new,” responded Ellen. Bevel1 (a teacher respondent) described how the
students “created modifications, and then tested them again to make improvements…based on
their observations” to elaborate, and after educator and peer feedback, “went back to make
revisions to their designs.” Ellen noted that this system of “design thinking process of design,
test, redesign” contributed to Frieda’s description of how “makerspaces allow students to
become more aware of the engineering design process.” Eden illustrated the impact that the
maker mindset had on students’ imagination and exposition of details:
One of my students was passionate about Disneyland rides and their mechanics. She
researched the history and engineering of several of her favorite Disneyland rides and
then, with the help of adults as her learning partners, built a working scale model of one
of her favorite Disneyland/California Adventure rides, Radiator Springs Racers.
Elaboration: Interviews Results. A theme through the participants’ interviews
continued to move the idea that the maker mindset, and perseverance advanced elaboration and
Eden emphasized it occurred through “modification” and “precision.” Brandy segued that the
mindset grew as they “used the same materials [among the teams] but manipulated them in a
different way” with “amazing attention to detail in them” according to Eden. The educators
frequently alluded to their choice to “leave a lot of open-endedness that allowed them to take it
in a lot of different directions” according to Brandy.
106

Elaboration: Observations Results. According to the observation rubric, students
demonstrated an overall 2.22 out of 3, which was the second-lowest (out of six) of the
subcomponent rating. Its Standard Deviation also demonstrated that some students were in the
expert range. Most students in the maker lab were in the upper developing level for creative
elaboration. The students added details and improvements to their or others' ideas when
designing and making.
Creative ideas were observed to emerge from the collaborative exchange of ideas and
feedback. During an observation, individual ability to elaborate made an impact on a group of
students. The student exhibited strong enthusiasm as he was collaborating with a group (not his
own) who had their hoop already built to suggest construction improvements.
The student in the Fastener observations organized maker processes by incorporating
construction techniques to accomplish a design that captured the imagined essence of her ideal
house. According to Fanny, these items included yarn, fabric, pieces for plastic coat hangers,
other things “lying around,” and borrowed parts of other dollhouses that she already had in her
actual room. This was an example of how high-level fluency created a pool of choices from
which to extend the student’s elaborative ideas.
Elaboration: Documents Results. The documents were an important data source for
elaboration. A geometric, especially pyramids, theme—math content transfer—arose in many of
the documents referring to both a common shape and to the Egyptian structures. This variety of
pyramid products demonstrated teacher partnership and openness to allow the making to happen
along with a CreaT process promoted multiple interpretations of a product design by the
students. These students had the task of showing their knowledge about what they learned about
pyramids in a CreaT way with a choice of materials, internal and external representations and
107

some included symbolic representations (Figure 5 and Figure 6). Engineering skills were utilized
through making. In Figure I3, the students made pyramids out of blocks of wood and the outside
had elaborative details in its construction.

Figure 5
Spider

108

Figure 6
Pyramid 1

Figure I4 demonstrated a connection between analog and digital making as the student
built a Sonoran Desert habitat of animals that integrated a prototype relationship between the
game Minecraft and hard materials using paint, colored paper, cardboard, and paper towel rolls.
The cacti construction demonstrated an ability to combine mathematics into design to engineer
3D figures like the bobcat, but especially the cactus which has a quality of almost non-
observable gaps or visible points of attachment between the various smaller components that
made up the whole cactus.
Figure I5 includes the still video of the student playing his version of the old familiar
table football game—also triangular shaped. The student used screws to connect the pieces of the
wood to make the goalpost and one long screw along with glue to secure the platform from
which the football was kicked. The triangles were secured by inserting their pointing end into the
2-by-1 piece of wood that connected the platform to the kicking base. The student put hard work
into designing two games independently. This demonstrated elaboration. in a way that may not
have shown up in the other data categories.

109

Creative Thinking: Creative Strategies
According to Shively et al. (2018), creative strategies is the process by which the other
elements come about when students generate ideas and creative solutions to address a problem.
Creative strategies, they surmise, include brainstorming strategies such as affinity mapping,
reverse brainstorming, attribute listing, and SCAMPER (an acronym of question prompts to
guide ideation; substitute, combine, adapt, minimize/maximize, put to another use, eliminate,
rearrange). In creative strategies, students think beyond just gathering ideas to solve through
construction and require student designers to spark creative thinking and problem-solving
through iterative strategies. These educators’ moves promoted creativity by promoting
brainstorming and questioning, choices in construction techniques, and facilitating the design
process.
Creative Strategies: Surveys. In the surveys, educators were asked to share strategies
used to promote CreaT in the makers’ spaces. Multiple respondents shared strategies that they
related to empathy-building and end-user needs to creatively design and construct a usable
product. Bevel1 noted that these strategies included “interviewing them about personal interest
or need,” followed by group reflection by what Driller1 (a lab facilitator respondent) called
“think tanks” (fluency) followed by what Evelyn described as “open discussion to enhance
viewpoints while respectfully disagreeing with others” (flexibility) using “Socratic Seminar or
shared inquiry discussions” (resistance to premature closure). Eden and Fastener1 (an
administrator) noted in addition to these strategies, rubrics, blueprinting, and design goals
brainstorming incorporated communication, collaboration, and student-centered inquiry, and
Driller2 (a lab facilitator) found that students “built confidence and internal motivation.” The
makers’ spaces afforded students the situational context to use skills and techniques to apply
110

criteria in a team setting using an array of tools and recycled materials to construct an original
product that demonstrated content-specific mastery.
Creative Strategies: Interviews. All of the participants identified ways in which creative
strategies in the makers’ spaces impacted CreaT particularly focusing on the design thinking
process (Figure 7). These strategies included using research and data analysis to inform task
problems and form hypotheses (Cate, Ellen), and communication strategies such as summarizing
to “be able to collaborate and communicate, debate and think on the spot” (Cate). According to
Ellen the students “tweaked, refined and redesigned their projects” and brainstormed using “lots
of checklists and sticky notes with recommendations,” which helped “them to organize their
thinking, narrow things down, categorize them, sort them and then eliminate some and
[reorganize] categories.” According to Fanny, brainstorming “huge lists of stuff to make a
successful design” increased CreaT in terms of fluency and resistance to premature closure by
extending the CreaT process beyond initial ideas to the components of fantasy and humor.
Participants like Fanny included graphic organizers and journals-design diagramming as
strategies that facilitated CreaT. This suggests that ... These creative strategies, while not unique
makers’ spaces, were made unique because of their application through the open-ended
discovery aspects of construction to goal-oriented, student-initiated design and building to meet
the needs of a potential end-user.

111

Figure 7
Design Thinking Process

Note. The conceptual system of the Design Thinking Process contextualized through the 4Cs of
21st century learning within the makers’ space. Adapted from 5 Stages in the Design Thinking
Process, by R. F. Dam and T. Y. Siang, 2021, Interaction Design Foundation
(https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/5-stages-in-the-design-thinking-process.
Copyright 2021 by Teo Yu Siang and Interaction Design Foundation; Engineering Design
Process, by Colorado University Engineering, n.d., Teaching Engineering STEM Curriculum for
K–12 (https://www.teachengineering.org/design/designprocess). In the public domain;
Engineering Design Process Illustration | Engineering for Good, by PBS Learning Media, n.d.,
PBS SoCal (https://ca.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/eg-design-process/et-design-process/). In
the public domain.
112

Creative Strategies: Observations. During the observations, the students and educators
were seen using strategies that contributed to their CreaT skills. Of the six areas of creativity that
were scored on the observation rubric, creative strategies scored the third-highest indicating that
the students were above the developing level in that area showing some deliberateness in
choosing a CreaT strategy to develop ideas and explained how the strategy supported their
creativity when they had the opportunity. This occurred primarily as a result of teacher
questioning since I did not interact or ask questions. While the strategies were often tacitly
displayed, educators needed to be aware of the reasons to be purposeful in teaching creative
strategies, demonstrating how they can be applied to various tasks (flexibility) and then
encouraging their use during making activities (elaboration). The most frequent strategies are
verbal brainstorming (fluency). Students used their own form of questioning and evidence-based
reasoning in their discussions to strategize which highlighted the way that collaboration and
communication, two necessary elements of makers’ spaces, fostered creativity. The students used
their journals and educator-generated organizers to sketch, label, and blueprint (synthesis of lines
and circles) their design ideas. brainstorming strategies such as ideas were discussed by the
students aligning to available materials and tools through the design thinking process. When
students were felt stuck in their design ideation, they frequently sought out ideas from their
peers. Finally, it is important to note that in three of the observations some of the students were
observed to skip using preparational creative strategies, and rather jumped into building. This
required recognition by the educators in order to redirect the students back to effectively use
their strategies. This is important because it dichotomizes the difference between pure discovery
learning and maker learning.
113

Creative Strategies: Documents. Details of the lesson plans (Appendix J), artifacts
(Appendix I), give visual evidence of the many strategies and ways that CreaT occurred. The
lesson plans and artifacts exposited on creative strategies portraying organizers to promote
brainstorming lists of ideas and materials that were aligned to the specific criteria of the tasks
and then working through a process of discussion and reflection to narrow down those ideas. See
Appendix K for the maker tools and materials carts which enabled students access to hands-on
tangibles to implement their strategies. Educators inspired the brainstorming process by
including ideation strategies through related maker videos from BrainPOP and YouTube and
children's books that related to design. The lesson plans aligned with the other data buckets in
that through the principles of the design process students sketched, diagrammed, labeled, and
blueprinted their ideas followed by building and construction. A unique creative strategy that
came out of the photo documents was the strategy in which students incorporated arts and theatre
standards by acting out or creating tableaux of their designs as a method of testing—storytelling.
Finally, the data that was revealed in the documents demonstrated how makers’ spaces were
unique situational learning opportunities in that students were required to make creative
decisions in order to solve problems aligned to task criteria.
Creative Thinking: Findings
Finding 1. CreaT was impacted in the makers’ space through situated attributes of spaces
such as safe competition that rewarded the process and effort through play and gamification of
maker tasks to elaborate and design unique products that balanced function (balance and
structure) and form (aesthetics). This was accomplished through multiple opportunities to make
because of the freedom and openness of the tasks to design prototypes, products (see Appendix L
for a list of the maker projects room diagrams) and presentations of constructions that revealed
114

CreaT (synthesis of incomplete figures/lines, richness of imagery, abstractness of title and
resistance to premature closure).
Finding 2. The transference of background content knowledge is a function of the maker
setting that fosters collaboration through skills, techniques, and strategies resulting in elaboration
on original ideas and products. Those strategies included making mental and physical
connections, sketching, blueprinting, communicating through think tanks, graphic organizers,
and journaling as part of the design thinking process. The skills and techniques were enabled
through the variety and choice of reusable and recyclable materials, and tools that contributed to
students’ ownership of their making and allowed them to work out how things connect as a
means to stable construction (internal visualization), and connectedness among teammates to
negotiate that strengthened fluency of ideas and flexibility to be able to creatively respond to
limitations and variety of multiple options.
Finding 3. Makers’ spaces promote problem-based inquiry in which CreaT is increased
through iterative, constructionist, design thinking principles and processes. These principles are
contingent on the individual and collaborative discovery, failure, conjecture, hypothesis,
modification, improvisation, trial, and error that result in valuable end-user innovative inventions
that are evidence of creativity (fantasy, humor, fluency, and originality).
Creative Thinking: Summary
The students, participants, and respondents in this study cover a broad range of
educational institution types. The students themselves represented a broad range of
socioeconomic levels as well as ability levels. Yet there was consistency across all of the data
sets that demonstrated that students who experienced maker learning responded with high levels
of CreaT based on the predetermined a priori themes as well as the emergent themes that gave
115

insight into why creativity increased. The data revealed that all four Cs of creativity were
achieved through maker experiences. Tl.
Critical Thinking
CT as a thinking process and parent node is divided into child nodes based on the
subcomponents described in the TCT Manual (Appendix M). Those subcomponents were coded
as a priori nodes and child nodes. The a priori codes were coded in NVivo 12 as nodes along
with child nodes as sub-codes or emerging codes. The a priori codes for CT are represented in
Figure 8, which also represents the total CT mean reported by the educators in Table 5.
Calculated judgment evolved as a theme over the coding and thematic analysis process. The
survey categories analysis, interpret, and explanation were merged into calculated judgment
because of their contribution to one's ability to make an informed decision. Emerging codes and
themes related to CT included maker design process and educator moves. The overarching
determination for the themes that came out of the data buckets was the result of what students
communicated to each other, the choices they made to progress toward a product construction,
and the evidence that their decisions were the result of problem-solving. This situational facet of
makers’ spaces provided an uncommon approach to learning that built entrepreneurial abilities
by focusing on empathy and usefulness for the design product’s end-users.
116

Figure 8
Critical Thinking Conceptualized by Subcomponents

Note. Adapted from the Test of Critical Thinking Examiner’s Manual (pp. 12–13) by B. A.
Bracken, W. Bai, E. Fithian, M. S. Lamprecht, C. Little, and C. Quek, 2003, Center for Gifted
Education, The College of William and Mary. In the public domain; “Predicting real-world
outcomes: Critical thinking ability is a better predictor of life decisions than intelligence” by H.
A. Butler, C. Pentoney, and M. P. Bong, 2017, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 25, p. 45.

Table 5
Educators Survey Responses by Critical Thinking Subcomponent and by Role With Mean and Standard Deviation for All Students
Sub construct/
role
Teacher
mean
Teacher
standard
deviation
Lab
facilitator
mean
Lab facilitator
standard
deviation
*Administrator
mean
*Administrator
standard
deviation
All
educators
mean
All educators
standard
deviation
CT total 3.66 0.711 3.81 0.608 4.18 0.408 **3.88/
***3.76
0.684
Issue 3.72 0.669 3.67 0.488 3.71 0.624
Purpose 3.89 0.583 3.67 0.488 3.83 0.565
Point of view 3.56 0.624 3.67 0.535 3.58 0.590
Assumptions 3.50 0.786 3.33 0.756 3.46 0.779
Evidence 3.89 0.583 3.83 0.378 3.88 0.537
Inference 3.75 0.577 3.67 0.488 3.73 0.550
Calculated
judgment
4.0 0.767 4.17 0.816 4.04 0.751
Implication 4.11 0.758 3.83 0.378 4.04 0.690
Concept 3.75 0.775 3.50 0.535 3.68 0.716
Interpretation 3.75 0.775 3.67 0.787 3.73 0.767
Analysis 3.61 0.776 3.50 0.787 3.58 0.776
Explanation 3.67 0.767 3.67 0.488 3.67 0.702

117

Note. Minimum value = 1; maximum value = 5
* Administrators did not rate subcomponents
** (all roles equally weighted)
*** (combined roles includes all subcomponents)

118
119

Critical Thinking: Overall
Many subcomponents of CT emerged from the data as well as the a priori codes and
themes. As an overall construct, the educators observed students demonstrating CT skills in the
makers’ space more than most of the time (Table 6). This meant that the tasks and the student
teams’ responses to the tasks through design and construction decisions developed and revealed
their ability to use CT in that problem space. During observations in the makers’ spaces, students
were observed to demonstrate a total CT rating of a high developing/approaching expert level on
the observation rubric (Table 7). The two highest subcomponents in the observation, analyzes
data (analysis) and assesses conclusions (calculated judgment, inference), respectively, were the
two areas in which students demonstrated expert ability in CT followed by communicates PoV,
and summarizes topic or argument (concept, issue). Calculated judgment was also one of the
highest two subcomponents (Table 7) along with implication, which was in the lower half of the
observation rubric scores demonstrating some discrepancy between the observed data and the
survey data. Similarly, analysis and first-person PoV were in the lowest two ratings scores on the
educators’ survey, in contrast with the high analysis score on the observation rubric. The
discrepancy between the analysis score on the survey and the observations may have been due to
the educators’ beliefs. At least two of the participants stated that they believed that the students
at this age may not yet have the maturity to fully display strong analysis skills. The CT
quantitative scores aligned similarly across data sets.

120

Table 6
Educator Survey of Students’ Overall Critical Thinking in the Maker Lab Comparison by
Educator Role
Construct/educator role Teacher Lab facilitator Administrator Overall
(N = 9) (N = 7) (N = 6) (N = 22)
Critical thinking 4.44 4.29 4.17 4.34

Note. 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = most of the time, 5 = always

Table 7
Critical Thinking Observation Scores by Subcomponent, Corresponding Survey Code, and Total
Compiled Score Based on the Shively et al. (2018) Rubric (N = 11)
CT component Mean SD
Overall 2.33 0.491
Summarizes topic or argument (concept, issue) 2.40 0.540
Considers previous assumptions (assumptions) 2.14 0.595
Communicates PoV (first person PoV) 2.44 0.437
Provides evidence of research (evidence) 2.29 0.400
Analyzes data (analysis) 2.57 0.416
Considers others’ perspectives and positions (third person PoV,
purpose)
2.09 0.491
Draws implications (implications) 2.24 0.564
Assesses conclusions (calculated judgment, inference) 2.48 0.416

Note. 1 = novice, 2 = developing, 3 = expert

121

Critical Thinking: Calculated Judgment
Calculated judgment was not one of the a priori codes listed in Appendix M. The concept
merged the ability to use inquiry as a starting point to analyze, elaborate, and reason so that one
can then calculate and make judgments that lead to specific problem-solving. Calculated
judgment encapsulates many of the a priori codes derived from the TCT framework and often
begins with student inquiry and conceptualization of a useful product of construction. Concept
reflects primary or secondary domains of the maker’s task or scenario by summarizing the
underlying ideas of a situation or task. The data revealed that the learners reflected, responded to
failure, modified, revised, to alter their making which emerged through disciplined calculated
judgment (coded 154 times).
Calculated Judgment: Surveys. On the survey, calculated judgment scored the third-
highest among the primary subcomponents of CT at 4.04 (out of 5), which was the highest score
tied with implication and ahead of evidence. To promote calculated judgment Driller2 noted that
“students were asked to discuss and plan, prior to starting to construct, to agree to a main goal
and to divide up the jobs for the project.” The majority of the respondents described how this
process gave students the opportunity to hear other perspectives, eliminate some ideas, and
choose the most effective designs. Eden’s description of a collaborative cycle of “observing,
analyzing, documenting their data and testing procedures,” communicating what was learned,
“test and test again” was the baseline for the makers to “problem-solve logistics” and “make
improvements.” Frieda summarized,
Makers’ spaces create a space where inquiry thrives. It's amazing to watch students
wonder, design, create, try, recreate and more. It's an environment that allows students to
thrive because it celebrates failure and uses it to push forward towards greatness. Makers’
122

spaces exemplify the implementation of inquiry and reasoning in a problem-solving
context.
Calculated Judgment: Interviews. The majority of the participants gave evidence that
exemplified the educators’ moves, the setting and context, and open-ended opportunities that
guided students to be able to observe the results of their making, then analyze how their choices
in materials and construction techniques had room for continual improvement. Respectively,
Eden, Allen, Fanny, Evelyn, and Ellen shared that “we model it as a teacher team” and tasks
were set up that required teams to “identify problems” and “through constraints” “in their world,
identify some solutions and create some prototypes.” Fanny added how limitations on materials
and time promoted “complexity” purchasing “certain things that they could choose to buy” for
their constructions without “blowing their budget.” Real-life scenarios and or parallels were the
most impactful for students to self-manage and persevere through the process. Brandy shared
how a problem space scenario promoted how the students
recreated Olympic events by building them like recreating a pole vault pole and a bar and
like experimenting with different materials ... just like reenacting the shotput trying it
with a tennis ball, a wadded-up sock, or a Whiffle ball and observing what changes.
There were some depending on the activity where they would list like modifications.
Let's say they kept the same material the whole time there would be a space for them to
list. Okay, maybe you use the same materials, but did you manipulate them in a different
way? The second time you tried it to make it work or yield a different result.
Brandy noted strategies such as diagrams, reflecting after discussion, journaling, and then
“going back and doing the second round” to “make the complex more simple and kind of make
improvements or finish.” If there was a valid suggestion, the metacognitive question, “What
123

caused them to see someone else's perspective or ideas and then change their mind?” was asked.
Calculated judgment resulted from the opportunity to reflect on the process and communicate in
teams that fostered student autonomy through educator guidance to push their observational
analysis and judgment to make improvements in their maker products.
Calculated Judgment: Observations. According to the observation rubric, calculated
judgment (assesses conclusions) and analyzes data were the two highest-scoring subcomponents
at an overall 2.57 and 2.48 out of 3. The scores indicated that the students demonstrated a level
that was beyond developing with some expert level evidence in the maker lab. The students
exhibited reflection of idea evolution on argument development. Ellen commented, “Most of
them were developing with that idea of reflection on idea evolution." A fourth-grade student
concluded, after receiving new information about the context of his audience, that he needed to
redo his design proposal letter with the ‘client’ in mind.
During the observations, particular strategies contributed to students’ reflection and idea
evolution to build calculated judgment. These included drawing out progressive ideas, discussion
among team members, researching, looking back on their prior decisions, comparing them to the
task clues that they have been given which often led to a conclusive claim in their design
proposal. During the design and construction of the lever and hoop game students demonstrated
evidence of argument development to make judgments between design ideas. Another group in
the same task from my observational notes used calculated judgment to determine the best setup
for their hoop during the March Madness challenge:
The partners take turns holding the backboard to adjust to the best angle and then discuss
how the hoop will affect the tower. They decide that they have identified the best
124

configuration for the pieces to be able to effectively pull the lever and the team suggests
to start gluing it together.
The students in the observations exhibited reflection of idea evolution and effective argument
development.
During the virtual maker chat sessions, the student exhibited reflection of idea evolution
on argument development. There were over 20 episodes that portrayed multiple examples in
which the partnership between the teacher and the student evidenced calculated judgment. In
those episodes, the student measured the teacher’s technique demonstrations to choose the best
ways to both temporarily and permanently connect cardboard walls in the house that she is
building. Other materials choices conversations were guided by Fanny, “Let's talk about what we
want to do next. So, once we have the bathtub in the sink, what do we want to add to our creation
here? Student: The toilet.” This led to the student self-managing her choice of materials to fit
into the design. The teacher promoted quiet work time, processing time, and interactive feedback
with the teacher to be able to calculate and make judgments generated through observation and
evaluation.
Calculated Judgment: Documents. Calculated judgment was coded 58 times during the
analysis of the documents as evidence of its impact. One female student and two male students
worked together to calculate which materials combined to construct the most effective 30-second
timer in Figure I6. In many of the groups, only one person at a time was the “doer” while the
other two were either assisting with an action such as pouring, or in this photo the student was
preparing for another step.
Photos showcased calculated judgment scenarios. In one of the virtual sessions (Figure
K2), the teacher maximized the use of the virtual screen to inspire the student to be able to
125

observe techniques and demonstrations that guided her ability to self-manage the judgments she
made about her own constructions, materials, and. In Figure I7 A skee-ball game shows angles
and balance of difficulty. The virtual teacher demonstrated how to use a toothpick to secure a tie-
off when threading the holes between walls to tie them together, and the student responded with
mental effort to replicate and personalize the techniques. A maker timeline in Figure I8 from
Edger detailed the transfer of content knowledge across disciplines from PBL systems to their
team maker projects. The students were required to use analysis, make designs, build prototypes,
and identify materials needed to put together resources for prototypes and their making in order
to test out ideas in the design process. The maker had to present findings using charts and
identify relevant data from the testing process. The students used the process to determine which
aspects of their builds worked, and where there needed to be modification and improvement.
Critical Thinking: Evidence
Evidence describes the student’s ability to focus sharply on specific information within a
scenario. According to Bracken et al. (2003) students who demonstrate CT through evidence
identify specific evidence from their observations and reflections of the test/retest process to
support a conclusion or their reasoning for choosing to or choosing not to make modifications to
their design. It includes being able to recognize that there is not enough information to support a
conclusion. These students were able to assess how information influenced their interpretation of
a scenario. Evidence was coded 103 times, ahead of implication and behind inference. It had the
highest CT increase from Anvil’s beginning-of-the-year TCT to the end-of-the-year survey
remaining at benchmark for both measures in Table E5.
Evidence: Surveys. In the survey, evidence scored 3.88 (out of 5), which was the
second-highest total score for CT behind implication and calculated judgment (tied) and ahead of
126

inference and interpretation. This indicated that the educators observed this CT skill most of the
time for the majority of students in the makers’ space. Teachers and lab facilitators rated the
subcomponent nearly the same. Driller1 shared that “through this inquiry process, they were able
to formulate a solution without being told the answer by the teacher. They were able to apply
their new base knowledge when changing the variable (pins) at the bottom of the ramp.” The
students used evidence to construct block-coded programs to maneuver robots through various
mazes.
Evidence: Interviews. The participants described the moves and strategies that were
implemented to promote and set the stage for CT with evidence. Prior to starting tasks, Fanny
stated, “we sat down in our discussion groups,” and Cate added they “questioned one another for
a certain amount of time and came up with questions” and “talked about what would make a
good design and successful project” added on Fanny, which set the stage for which evidence was
needed to support their conclusions. Eventually, students became independent with assessing
evidence and information to be able to present their findings. According to Brandy,
Without you even asking, they explain to you what specifically they did to get to this
point, what they had to change, and how they had to maybe stack the hoop a little bit
higher. So, I feel like especially when they figure it out. That's when they like to tell you,
this is exactly what we had to do to get it to actually work.
Evidence: Observations. Being able to justify an interpretation or a conclusion with
evidence was a challenging element to gain data on in a single observation. There would have
been more summative data on evidence had there been an opportunity to complete maker task
cycles. On the observation rubric, the total score for the 11 observations for provides evidence of
research was 2.29 (out of 3.0), which was the fifth highest behind summarizes topic or argument
127

(concept, issue) and ahead of draws implications. The scores suggested that the students
demonstrated evidence that was beyond developing in the makers’ space with a SD that indicated
some students were at the expert level. Some supported their arguments using information from
appropriate sources. At other times teams accepted evidence at face value even if it may
unknowingly be an inadequate or incorrect claim. At other times, the use of evidence was
explicit.
Evidence: Documents. Evidence, which was coded 40 times, emerged through the
analysis of the documents. In Figure I9 three students from Bevel were working together looking
over the current progress and configuration of their project. The wood had been cut and
connected into a rectangular shape using glue and nails. They were making conclusions about
what to do next with the pieces of wood that have already been cut based on the evidence of the
stability of their structure. In photos from Anvil students picked up ideas for their power grid
task by observing another group's design as that group laid out their connectors. This data
showed the students using observation to determine the best choices based on evidence. It also
promoted multiple perspectives to determine the best solutions.
Critical Thinking: Implication
Implication of outcome or next steps describes the students to determine what is likely to
happen next after a given scenario. Implication has similarities to inference. Inference also
scored high on the survey, and, similarly to the impact of fluency on CreaT, inference plays an
interpretive part in all of the other subcomponents of CT. It differs in that inference requires the
learner to infer what will most likely or least likely happen based on evidence, while implication
in more future thinking and asks the learner to identify what will hypothetically happen after
possible modifications are made, or what would have happened in a scenario had something been
128

done differently. It also includes the ability to sequencing or to trace final decisions and results
back to prior conclusions or factors. A person who has high implication ability can also
determine likely outcomes to possible actions or designs that had not been presented. In other
words, what might happen if such and such were to be done differently to the construction.
Implication: Surveys. On the survey, implication scored 4.04 (out of 5), which was the
highest total score for CT along with calculated judgment. It was ahead of evidence. This
indicated that the educators observed this CT skill most of the time for the majority of students in
the makers’ space. teachers rated the subcomponent 0.28 higher than lab facilitators. The surveys
gave evidence of implication in the makers’ space by way of the educators’ facilitation due to the
maker tasks that required students to design within scenarios that were hypothetical, and the
effort and perseverance put forth by the students to design constructions that were innovative and
imaginative.
Implication: Interviews. The majority of the participants described the theme change
relating it to implication and how students spent time developing and working through
hypotheticals that frequently extended the focus and audience of their original design into variant
designs with different audiences. Another common theme shared by at least half of the
participants was the high degree of fantasy and innovation in the products which included
spherical skyscrapers, multicolored solar panels, functioning trees, noise reduction machines,
light-directed machines that saved the lives of birds, taco factories, noise pollution reducers, and
Evelyn added, “we talked about helping users to eradicate invasive species in places like
Australia.” There were multiple examples of how the teams extended the original task to explore
implications. Some teams at Fastener, during the taco factory design. They applied economic
principles and end-user mindfulness coming up with machines and constructions that were well
129

beyond the ordinary according to Fanny, including utilizing “hydraulic lifts” that were built
“budgeted” with earned fake money. Finally, the majority of participants emphasized the value
of organizers, which continued the thread of Educators Moves as an impact on CT. Fanny
explained,
The design process is a thinking process, and there's usually a circular kind of diagram
that I would use that helps kids to kind of see that, that as we start this process we get to
this test and redesign/test redesign that we can kind of loop through this a little bit before
we end up at the end.
While in a virtual maker chat the participants described their efforts to encourage the
students, as makers, to use the space around them to determine what was likely to happen next
after the given scenario. Fanny shared that “several kids have used plants. They're trying to
regrow plant clippings and find the best way to do that. They're using different plants and seeing
if they can regrow them and get them to root which has been interesting.” At other times the
educators attempted their own trial and error to promote tasks. Here, Brandy shared how during
virtual learning the students engaged in productive play to investigate scientific principles by
observing how various materials affected mass, volume, and propulsion relationships:
I think I would list like suggested materials that they could use so I said, they could use
like a straw, and if they had like a little washer, they could put on that and then like plant
one and have the strong kind of fling the washer and see how far it goes or if it goes high
or whatever, or they could use like a pipe cleaner and a bead and compare the two. Like
does the bead go farther or the washer? Why? The bead was smaller, the washer’s more
heavy. I don't know I was kind of literally grasping at straws trying to figure out what
they use for like what they would have in their house to do these things.
130

Implication: Observations. On the observation rubric, the total score for the 11
observations for draws implications was 2.24 (out of 3.0). The scores indicated that the students
demonstrated a level that was beyond developing and approaching expert level in the maker lab
with a SD that indicated there were students at the expert level too. The students explained the
impact of new information while making predictions and generating new ideas. Ellen noted that
“I think most of them were developing at drawing implications. We might have a few that could
move into that expert category.” Fourth-grade students at Anvil demonstrated this when given
the cue cards from the governor's feedback. There was a clear response generating new ideas in
both the diseño design and in considering how their revised ideas promoted a better functioning
diseño design. The GATE student at Bevel making the structure for the math game recognized
that his creative choices to use alternating cones in his bridge design had stability flaws. He
recognized the implications and adjusted improve the structure while relinquishing his preferred
choice of materials based on functionality. In another class at Bevel, the students in a group
working through the math game task exhibited an understanding of how the introduction of new
materials synthesized into their big idea design of the game. The group worked well together to
identify new materials, gather them, and explain to each other how the inclusion of the materials
added value to the construction and progress of their game design. The teacher played a part in
moving the group forward by encouraging them to draw implications.
Again, strategies such as diagrams and discussions promoted the CT process to determine
likely outcomes. In this observation at Bevel, one student asked questions about the implication
of the partner’s structure:
The student had a bridge-looking shape with his bottles and cards. Student 3 questioned
how they would use it in the game. He continued to cut and make parts of the games
131

while student1 glued pieces of cardboard together. Teacher: What do you do with the
bridge? Student: you roll on this one and you get 10 points.
Experimentation and the test and retest process were the result of students testing out ideas to
determine what might happen if materials were interchanged or attached to each other in various
ways.
Implications: Documents. During the analysis of documents, implication was coded 26
times. Photos from Anvil showed students used a connecting material (masking tape) and
adjusted the number of cardboard boxes to test the implications of stability in their slinky-esque
leaning tower. They had to determine a combination of factors such as weight, the strength of the
tape, and balance to determine outcomes. The photos gave insight into the way choices in
materials, for example cardboard or wood, and in tools, hammer or screwdriver, opportunities,
and evidence of CT in both small decisions and in larger design choices which demonstrated
eventual impact on the makers’ constructions.
A Fastener student attempted a new strategy to start a notch cut near the middle of the
accordion fold cardboard. She transferred knowledge from the teacher to implement a new skill
technique to set up a successful connection outcome. She made a hole punch hole in the
cardboard and then used the canary saw to cut down toward the edge of the cardboard. She uses
a new leverage technique moving away from holding the cardboard up against the sewing
machine to laying it flat on the table. This represented a connection between the student’s ability
to choose between techniques and materials to achieve the desired construction and it showed
that she was thinking ahead to fitting the notch cut so that the cut was clean.

132

Critical Thinking: Findings
The following findings emerged out of the analysis of the four areas of data. They
emerged from the responses given by the quantitative data, most of the survey respondents, the
interview participants, the observation data, and the analysis of the documents. These themes
will be interwoven throughout the discussion of how the data answers the RQs.
Finding 1. An increase in CT (calculated judgment, analysis) was the result of the
contextual factors of the makers’ spaces, including educator moves (tasks, skills, and best
practices (brainstorming, journaling, conversations). The opportunities to experience choice,
variety, limitations in materials, tools, and techniques were included in the moves that educators
made to spark the students to be creative makers.
Finding 2. Compared to a traditional classroom setting CT (inference, implication, PoV)
was moderately impacted by the collaborative and communicative iterative aspects of making.
This played out through the involved hands-on building and the test/retest process of
construction.
Finding 3. CT (purpose, evidence, calculated judgment) was mildly impacted by the
integration and transference of content knowledge driven by curiosity and applied to construction
and design through technique choices, peer collaboration, and peer communication. This
interaction is a tool for students to increase their ability to make reasoned decisions based on
evidence toward a goal or purpose.
Critical Thinking: Summary
The students, participants, and respondents in this study cover a broad range of
educational institution types. The students represented a broad range of socioeconomic levels as
well as ability levels. The data sets, except for a couple of subcomponents discussed in the
133

introduction, represented consistent scores among the subcomponents of CT. The quantitative
data suggested that students demonstrated the evidence of CT between most of the time and all
of the time. The qualitative data supported this and gave descriptive reasons connected to the
makers’ spaces’ access to open-ended experiences, the power of educator coaching, and peer
collaboration and communication as the rationale behind the high levels of CT. There was
consistency across all of the data sets that demonstrated that students who experienced maker
learning responded with high levels of CT based on the predetermined a priori themes as well as
the emergent themes. The makers’ spaces both revealed and developed CT in the student-makers
for most subcomponents of CT at a high proficiency most of the time while working in the
spaces. The next sections will discuss how educator moves intentionally supported the growth
and development of these thinking skills.
Educator Moves
Lastly, the impact that was made on the CreaT and the CT skills of the learners cannot
easily be separated from the crosscutting concept that emerged as the educators moves. The
educators in line with constructionist pedagogy were coaches and facilitators who spiraled
through Peterson’s (2003) recommended process of voicing, “What is the problem? Are you sure
about it? What can we do about it? Try it, and How did it work?” (p. 374). Open-ended questions
were a pedagogical problem-solving method to move elementary students to consider what they
were doing, why they are doing it, and to take action to make the most of it. Figure 9 displays the
results for the three educator roles indicating that teachers observed higher levels of CreaT and
CT than lab facilitators and administrators. The overall scores (green bar) of the three roles seem
to be an accurate representation of the students’ actual thinking skills that students exhibited CT
134

to a slightly higher degree than CreaT and that both were seen in the students most of the time
during their work in the makers’ spaces.

Figure 9
Critical Thinking and Creative Thinking by Educator Role

Note. 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = most of the time, 5 = always

135

The educators’ impact in facilitating these skills was repeatedly evident in the data. Table
E7 identifies their deliberate moves that emerged from the data that encompassed task choices,
skill-building, and pedagogical preferences to plan ahead to achieve immediate and long-term
objectives and learning goals that impacted CreaT and CT. Research has supported determining
whether CreaT and CT can be learned passively or whether the thinking skills are increased
through explicit teaching to build these skills. Multiple studies have found that CreaT and CT
can be taught and learned (Abrami et al., 2008; Cunningham, 2011; Halpern, 1998; Haynes,
2020; McVeigh, 2014). There are views that CT should be cultivated through the content while
others view CT as a general thinking skill that identifies fallacies in reasoning such that it is
transferable across different contexts and can be improved through logical discourse (Abrami, et
al., 2008). Seven of the eight participants pointed out content transference from classroom to
makers’ space which benefited other areas of learning because they applied these skills to solve
problems in the content areas in unique ways. Teaching one does not inhibit the other, rather
building CreaT skills is fertile ground for teaching CT skills due to the problem-solving
intersection of the two. Further, identifying a favorable problem-solving context, or domain
(Willingham, 2020) for teaching CreaT and CT accelerates the development of both skills into
unconscious thinking (Haynes, 2020). Increased CreaT and CT skills require educator facilitation
of a guided approach that includes practice and corrective feedback followed by additional tasks
to facilitate the application of those skills (R. E. Clark, personal communication, July 12, 2019).
The data revealed that there were specific ways that CT and CreaT were positively
impacted by the teachers' moves according to the literature. These ways included (Abrami et al.,
2008; Cunningham, 2011; Halpern, 1998; Haynes, 2020; McVeigh, 2014; Willingham, 2020) the
following emergent sub-codes which are connected to maker learning.
136

● Specific tasks came in and out of the maker space (coded 298 times).
● Detailed tasks were explanations by the instructor about the objectives and directions for
completing the task (coded 77 times).
● Teacher engagement included purposeful actions that fostered engagement (coded 152
times).
● Teacher grouping was intentional grouping by the teacher in terms of number,
personality, or ability (coded 92 times). The majority of the educators identified the ideal
group as a quantity of three students (see Appendix N for a full analysis of student
groupings)
● Teacher learning guidance included techniques that the teacher used to move the learning
forward (coded 32 times).
● Background knowledge connection occurred when the teacher used media or other means
to make connections between the project and something familiar to the students (coded
83 times).
● Check for understanding occurred when the teacher checked to see that students
understood the guidance. This was a necessary step to partnership and an effective
process (coded 90 times).
● Hook built buy-in and motivation (coded 83 times).
● Suggestions and questions represented asking questions to clarify the thinking and the
design. The teacher may have made suggestions on next steps for the group (coded 50
times).
● Collaboration: among peers and others to set the stage for the thinking skills and learning
(coded 178 times).
137

● Safe space and partnership were moves to create safe spaces to allow risk and creativity
with feedback as the stakeholders see themselves as partners in the learning, which ties
into motivation (coded 271 times).
● Relinquish power was a move toward more student-centered, collaborative learning in
which decisions were shared (coded 92 tines).
● Variety and choice occurred when teachers promoted or limited choice in product or task
with students providing a variety of design and product in the tasks (coded 148 times).
● Reward or negative consequences was utilized by educators to promote the learning
(coded 50 times).
● Skill-building included skills and techniques shared with students to promote autonomy
(coded 222 times).
● Safety was part of skill-building and included physical safety (coded 22 times).
● Social-emotional represented that particular impact the maker space had on stakeholders
(coded 173 times).
Conclusion and Findings for Research Question 1
The themes that emerged in conjunction with the findings that were represented in the
data indicated that a constructionist pedagogy prevalent in the makers’ spaces had a positive
impact on the CreaT and CT of upper-grade elementary students. When asked whether makers’
spaces reveal CreaT and CT and how it occurs, Andrew shared his observation:
Yes, definitely both critical and creative thinking skills. Kids, thinking out of the box not
being afraid of open-ended questions, open-ended situations where the answer or the
result is not just inherently staring them right there in the face. You know a lot of kids
nowadays they struggle with that. We live in a world that everything is at our fingertips.
138

It's so life is so easy. So, anytime they're asked to persevere, it's often a challenge for so
many kids, they just want instant gratification. And that includes their learning. So, yeah.
Also, collaboration, I think makes maker spaces can really lead to wonderful building as
kids, collaborative skills, and cooperative skills. That's so much of how we use we use
projects to do ... why school is, you know, kids doing things in small teams.
The purposeful application of this philosophy of learning in a discovery setting such as a
makers’ space, has a positive impact primarily on CreaT ability and moderately on CT in upper-
grade elementary students. These findings emerged from the majority of the interview
participants, the survey respondents, and the observations and represent the research-based
strategies and impetus for revealing and improving students’ CreaT and CT
RQ2: Is There a Difference in an Elementary Makers’ Space’s Impact on the Creative
Thinking Skills and the Critical Thinking Skills Between Unidentified and Identified Gifted
Students?
The intent of RQ2 is to determine what impact an elementary makers’ space intervention has on
the CT and CreaT skills of unidentified and identified gifted students separately.
Giftedness
The intent of RQ2 was to learn and understand how the elementary makers’ spaces
impacted students who had been identified or had not been identified as gifted. In doing that I
wanted to understand how the quantitative and qualitative data may have stood out in those
students phenomenologically. In other words, did the makers’ spaces give the students the
opportunity to use their gifts, and were there cases when gifts were revealed? This section
primarily reflects the perspectives of the teachers and lab facilitators who worked directly with
the students in the makers’ space settings. Since they are responding to questions contextualized
139

for the two populations, unidentified and GATE, their expertise in GATE education is important.
Nearly half of the survey respondents, and more than half of the interviewee participants,
reported having at least significant expertise in gifted education. During interviews, those
participants explained that they had been through multiple hours of training per year over several
years and have applied that training in their full GATE classes as well as GATE cluster classes,
which are heterogeneous classes with a cluster of GATE students. The results revealed that there
were differences in the makers’ spaces impact between the two groups’ CreaT and CT. At the
same time, what emerged from the data was evidence of giftedness in the students who were not
previously identified as gifted. If a situated learning space can serve to reveal giftedness in a
child, what does that say about the level of importance that these labs or spaces potentially have
on our educational system? It is helpful to revisit giftedness in the context of current
identification. The state of California lists six categories of gifted and talented identification:
1. Intellectual
2. High achievement
3. Specific academic ability (mathematics, language arts)
4. Creative
5. Leadership
6. Arts
a. Visual
b. Vocal
c. Theatrical
To establish context for the results of the study it is important to explain and detail
background information of the participating schools in the context of gifted education. In order
140

to effectively meet the needs of GATE students, they need to be identified to meet their needs.
Eden shared “It makes me see red” because so-called experts promulgate that “everybody's
gifted and so nobody needs any kind of special treatment.” Independent schools in the study did
not formally identify students as gifted, but they incorporated gifted pedagogy. The public
schools ranged from schools that were homogeneously gifted to schools in which identified
gifted students were clustered in classes that were a majority of unidentified gifted students. I
chose to term it unidentified as opposed to using the term non-gifted because, as the data will
bear out, there was a likelihood that there were students in those classes who were gifted but had
not been identified.
Many gifted programs up through the 1980s used the Stanford-Binet IQ test to identify
cut-off IQs for their GATE programs, typically identifying students at 120 IQ and above as
gifted. That test has since given way to the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, or other
tests of intelligence administered by school psychologists. Both independent and public schools
in the study utilized a nationally normed assessment option as part of their identification.
Independent schools utilized the CTP to identify students who demonstrated higher cognitive
levels based on its own description (Lasnetski, 2021):
The CTP assesses verbal and quantitative reasoning skills and abilities. It is a rigorous
assessment covering reading, listening, vocabulary, writing, mathematics, and science.
The combined measures can be used to compare more content-specific, curriculum-based
indicators on performance (scores on the achievement tests) to the more conceptual
knowledge base (scores on the reasoning tests) that helps gauge potential. (para. 1)
In Appendix E the CTP scores compared against the TTCT, TCT, and the survey by unidentified
(Table E8 and Table E9) and identified (Table E10 and Table E11) GATE students, which
141

revealed alignment between CT and the CTP scores and growth over the maker intervention. The
public schools approached identification using a more complex system that combined
assessments, parent and teacher recommendations, portfolio work, grades, and intelligence tests
to build a matrix of qualitative and quantitative components for identification. participants who
represented gifted programs for the schools in the study described incorporating more equity-
minded assessments with the intention of recognizing giftedness in subgroups of the student
population in areas such as English learners and low-SES status. Some assessments included
nonverbal components. They included state standards-based tests, the Cognitive Abilities Test,
the Naglieri Nonverbal Abilities Test (NNAT), the Otis Lennon Scholastic Achievement Test
which were administered, according to Becky, by either teachers or by “GATE site
coordinators.” The NNAT and the Otis Lennon Scholastic Achievement Test have been shown to
support the identification of underserved subgroups (Lee et al., 2021). The participants identified
identification opportunities as an equity issue.
What was noticeably deficient in those complex models of identification was a system for
identifying students as gifted and talented in areas other than intellectual, high-achieving, and
specific academics. Specifically, as it pertains to this study, creativity seems not to have frequent
representation in GATE identification in schools and districts. Yet it is one of the most valued
thinking skills in terms of future employment and innovation leadership (Shavinina, 2013).
Becky made the assertion that “I'd like to get in earlier, especially Title I schools-refers to
schools that receive federal funding due to a high percentage of low-SES students and educate
the teachers a little bit more about that quirky kid who has a weird answer and thinks outside the
box.” Esther shared how the maker’s space may be a remedy for inequitable identification rates,
“We think making works for all kids. We just happen to have gifted kids on our campus. I would
142

love to take what we do to a Title I campus.” Becky shared how scores were adjusted “down” for
the NNAT “because we wanted to cast a wider equity net” in broader inclusion efforts. Those
test scores were part of a matrix of points that was designed to also include classroom
performance, parent input, and teacher input using the Hope Scale, which is a six-question Likert
scale assessment that identifies students’ identification of and ability to attain goals and hence
have hope (Snyder et al., 1997). Its “whole purpose was to identify students who are typically
underrepresented.” Additional matrix points were given to students with 504 plans,
Individualized Education Plans, low SES, and English learners, all examples of how diversity,
equity, and inclusion have gained ground in the field of gifted education.
Quantitative data and qualitative data were used in the analysis of surveys. The level of
detail used by the teachers in their commentaries qualified them to fulfill the role of assessing
students' giftedness. Teachers in the survey ranged from novice to veteran. Their experience in
the space increased their own expertise and trained their own eyes to identify this type of
giftedness. Approximately one-half of the participants claimed to have at least significant
experience in gifted education, also increasing the credibility of their assessment of their
students’ thinking skills, while one-fourth of the participants identified themselves as having
little experience with gifted students (Table 8). Those participants were also newer to the
teaching profession.

143

Table 8
Educators Expertise With GATE Students
Level of expertise Number of educators (N = 22)
Little 6
Moderate 5
Significant 10
Expert 1

Gifted: Creative Thinking
The study was structured so as to gather data on the impact that the makers’ spaces had
on the CreaT of both identified GATE students and unidentified students. Based on the results of
the qualitative and quantitative data, I will focus on the themes that emerged as the most relevant
to the purpose of RQ2, which may not have been the highest-scoring codes. These
subcomponents were flexibility, resistance to premature closure, and originality (Table 9). I
chose resistance to premature closure even though it was not one of the higher scoring
subcomponents because it was a lesser observed area in most traditional classroom scenarios and
its connection to the maker experiences uniquely brought out this aspect of CreaT. I did not
choose fluency and abstractness of titles although they were two of the highest three scoring
subcomponents because high fluency is a baseline expectation for all of the creativity
subcomponents. In other words, without a number of ideas (fluency), there would not be
creativity to observe, so it is assumed that fluency was likely high if the other subcomponents
were high. Surveys asked respondents to respond to questions and prompts about both groups of
students as applicable. Interviews were held with participants who were in positions represented
144

by either primarily GATE classrooms, primarily unidentified classrooms, and in some cases, the
classrooms were a GATE cluster model. Observations were held with data recorded on both
identified and unidentified gifted students. Document data were segregated based on the school
model. In other words, GATE schools’ documents were represented as GATE data, and
primarily non-designated schools’ documents represented unidentified students.

Table 9
Teacher Creativity Survey Comparative Responses by Subcomponent With Mean and Standard
Deviation for Unidentified and GATE Students
Sub construct/
Role
Non-
identified
mean
GATE-
identified mean
Non-identified SD GATE-identified SD
CreaT total 3.50 4.18 0.766 0.656
Abstractness of
titles
3.67 4.20 1.033 0.632
Elaboration 3.43 3.94 0.535 0.647
Flexibility 3.57 4.00 0.535 0.632
Fluency 3.71 4.45 0.756 0.522
Originality 4.01 4.36 0.787 0.674
Resistance to
premature
closure
3.14 3.64 0.900 0.809
Usefulness 3.43 4.09 0.787 0.539
Criterion
CreaT
strengths
3.49 3.74 0.732 0.633

Note. 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = most of the time, 5 = always
145

The identified GATE students in this study were selected primarily based on
cognitive/intelligence assessments and high-ability factors such as grades and related
assessments. In comparing the quantitative and qualitative data, the CreaT results at Anvil
showed a greater increase than CT, especially for GATE students, when compared to its
beginning-of-the-year assessment data on the TTCT. As the existing data from Anvil suggested,
there were characteristics of GATE students that inhibit their CreaT including perfectionism,
fixed mindsets as a result of usually being “right” or called “smart” and fear of standing out
(Webb et al., 2007, pp. 133–134). The observation rubrics (Table 10, Table 11) revealed that
fluency, flexibility, and originality were the highest observed areas of CreaT for the unidentified
students with SDs that indicated a range from expert to developing, and similarly fluency and
originality were the two highest-scoring subcomponents of CreaT for the GATE students. In fact,
the GATE students produced so many ideas (fluency) wanting, as Evelyn put it, “to show so
badly everything they knew that sometimes it got in the way of the task. They wanted to display
everything.” This also accentuates the importance of the choice in tasks that positively motivate
gifted students when “they value either the task or the result of the task” (Rimm, 2008, p. 147).
According to Torrance (1962b) originality also connects to intellectual strength, and since that
was not only a high-scoring element for GATE students, but also for unidentified students, it
may suggest that the makers’ space reveals intellect. However, flexibility which was not in the
highest three scoring subcomponents for GATE students had a higher SD which indicated a
larger range from developing to near expert.

146

Table 10
Creativity Observation Scores by Subcomponent and Total Compiled Score of Unidentified
Students Based on the Shively et al. (2018) Rubric (N = 3)
CreaT component Mean SD
Total 2.37 0.413
Fluency 2.5 0.500
Flexibility 2.5 0.500
Originality 2.5 0.500
Elaboration 2.0 0.0
Usefulness 2.2 0.289
Specific creativity strategy 2.5 0.500

Note. 1 = novice, 2 = developing, 3 = expert

147

Table 11
Creativity Observation Scores by Subcomponent and Total Compiled Score for GATE Students
Based on the Shively et al. (2018) Rubric (N = 7)
CreaT component Mean SD
Total 2.37 0.520
Fluency 2.8 0.248
Flexibility 2.1 0.580
Originality 2.7 0.364
Elaboration 2.3 0.366
Usefulness 2.0 0.658
Specific creativity strategy 2.3 0.366

Note. 1 = novice, 2 = developing, 3 = expert

Gifted: Creative Thinking, Quantitative Data
The beginning-of-the-year assessments at Anvil were segregated to display the results for
the GATE students and for the unidentified students in CreatT (Table E8 and E9) and for CT
(Table E10 and Table E11). In performing a descriptive analysis of these results and comparing
the averages of the two groups it was revealed that on the nationally normed CTP, GATE
students performed just over 20 percentile points higher than the unidentified on Verbal
Reasoning and 25 percentile points higher on Quantitative Reasoning. On the nationally normed
TTCT, the GATE students performed nearly 20 percentile points lower than the unidentified
students in Verbal creativity and just over 10 percentile points higher than the unidentified group
in figural creativity. These results are common to gifted students who are averse to creative risk-
148

taking, but which can be overcome through relevant strategies in a low stake (non-graded),
encouraging, learning environment that motivates idea production (Rimm, 2008, p. 280). That
data led me to examine why intellectually identified gifted students may not demonstrate creative
giftedness. At the same time, by the end of the year after the makers’ space intervention, the
gifted students were reported to have higher levels of CreaT in all of the subcomponents. To
review, the Verbal TTCT assesses the student’s ability to express in words:
● a number of ideas
● a number of ideas and strategies by variety
● ideas beyond the obvious or commonplace
● evidence of delayed gratification and nonconformance
The Figural TTCT assesses the student’s ability to express in figural construction:
● quantity of relevant responses
● unusual and imaginative responses
● exposition of imaginative details in responses
● Delay jumping to conclusions that lead to original ideas
The CTP results revealed a dissonance between the cognitive ability of students, and their
creative ability, especially in the noticeably lower performance by GATE students in their ability
to express creative ideas with words. It may be that many students who have not been identified
as GATE, based on their achievement and cognitive reasoning abilities, demonstrate creative
giftedness. Albeit the unidentified displayed their strength via verbal communication which
indicated high intellectual energy capable of connecting sequences, systems, and the ability to
make analogies that bypass technical encumbrances that lead to accelerated explanations
(Torrance, 1962a). Meanwhile, the GATE students exhibited their strength in originality in terms
149

of imaginative visual representations such as patterns and structure (engineering and math). The
final two of the top three subcomponents differed between the unidentified and the GATE
students, abstractness of titles and resistance to premature closure, respectively. This meant that
the unidentified students were able to capture the essence of their structures, which
complimented their high originality, while the GATE students demonstrated the ability to remain
open and delay closure on ideas that enable the transfer of knowledge. This occurred by
connecting comparative entities or concepts, which may seem unrelated, through some aspect of
commonality, structure, or purpose-mental leaps (Lee, 2012). An example of this was the
construction of a spherical skyscraper which achieved the purpose of never falling over but was
impractical. Furthermore, on the TTCT, the unidentified students scored below benchmark in
figural elaboration, verbal fluency, and figural originality, but after a year in the makers’ space
those students’ scores in fluency and originality ended up scoring among the three highest on the
survey. Similarly, the GATE students scored below benchmark on the beginning-of-the-year
TTCT data on elaboration, verbal flexibility, verbal fluency, and verbal originality, all listed
from lowest to highest percentiles. Notable on all three of these, after spending the year in the
makers’ lab, based on the educators’ survey was that both the unidentified students and the
GATE students demonstrated the largest increases in CreaT in elaboration, originality, and
flexibility suggesting that the constructionist, PBL approach to inquiry and design afforded by
maker education had a positive impact on CreaT in all students.
Table 9 exhibits the total compilation of subcomponents’ end-of-the-year scores from all
participants in the survey divided into their unidentified students and their GATE students. This
indicated that the GATE students, most of the time, as a group demonstrated higher-level CreaT
than the unidentified students (approaching most of the time) at the end of the makers’ space
150

intervention period. Similarly, according to the participants, GATE students demonstrated CreaT
at a higher level overall (Table 12) than unidentified students after a year of participation in the
makers’ spaces in a single overall rating based on the definition of creativity. The GATE
students’ CreaT scores meant that the educators observed that GATE students demonstrated
CreaT most of the time, while the CreaT was observed in the unidentified students nearly most
of the time during their makers’ space team interactions. However, based on the SD there was
overlap between the groups indicating a wide range within the two groups between those with
high CreaT and low CreaT. More narrowly, both subgroups scored highest in Abstractness of
Title, fluency, and originality with originality being the only overlap between the highest-scoring
subcomponent and Anvil’s area of highest increase. This data aligned with the single school
growth (Anvil) of CreaT over time. Since Anvil’s GATE students tested lower than the
unidentified students at the beginning of the year in CreaT, it suggested that GATE students
respond to the makers’ space intervention with a higher impact on CreaT than the space has on
some of the unidentified students. At the same time, the makers’ space intervention still had a
growth impact on the unidentified students over time and may reveal creative giftedness in
students who were not previously identified. When merging this data and the qualitative data
with the construct of OEs in GATE students it suggests that the makers’ spaces appeal to GATE
students’ intensities and motivate them in a way that typical classroom learning may not. In other
words, maker education stimulates GATE students’ five possible OE categories, intellectual,
imaginational, emotional, psychomotor, and sensual (refer to Table 2 for definitions to
categories):
● intellectual: stimulates curiosity, broad interests and focuses students’ concentration and
problem-solving ability
151

● imaginational: promotes the ability to visualize (design) well and extend imaginative
ideas
● emotional: release of anxiety in an open environment, but may also negatively impact due
to the frequent change in the predictable patterns of the environment
● psychomotor: provides opportunities to use surplus energy and move around
● sensual: frequency in a hands-on environment to enjoy sensory pleasures, textures, and
colors—may also negatively impact overstimulation
This impacts all students and may suggest that the maker intervention stimulates growth in
GATE students’ socio-emotional needs which in turn impacts CreaT. There was evidence of that
same impact on some of the unidentified students as well. This will be discussed in more depth
in RQ3.

Table 12
Overall Educators Survey (Teachers Only) Perception of Students That Exhibit CreaT in the
Maker Lab Unidentified GATE (N = 7)/GATE (N = 11) Comparison
CreaT (unidentified) SD (unidentified) CreaT (GATE) SD (GATE)
3.71 0.951 4.45 0.522

Note. 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = most of the time, 5 = always

152

Gifted: Creative Thinking, Qualitative Data
In the open-ended surveys, the educators gave examples from observations of their
students in their school’s makers’ space. Data from participants who were from GATE-themed
schools were coded under GATE data while data from participants from primarily unidentified
classrooms were coded as unidentified GATE student data except where they specifically
referred to either of the two groups. The observations were held by me, and data was recorded in
the unidentified and the GATE group categories. Document data was more generalized for all
student groups except where the documents specifically represented GATE populations at a
school. These data complimented their quantitative responses to the a priori codes of CreaT.
Gifted: Creative Thinking, Flexibility
According to Torrance (2008) flexibility represents a student’s ability to create various
ideas and strategies while changing approaches to the process. Low flexibility may indicate rigid
thinking habits, limited intellectual knowledge, or low motivation. Students with high flexibility
may jump from one approach to another without maintaining a line of thought to completion.
Flexibility: Surveys. The majority of the participants shared that the unidentified
students demonstrated flexibility in the way that they responded to limitations in their spaces,
their resources, and within the boundaries of their tasks. For example, some tasks required
students to design and construct their product with a given budget in which materials were
assigned costs. The majority of the respondents described how the students showed flexibility
because this put them in the position, according to Fanny, of having to “look for other solutions”
that economized the use of materials needed to construct their designs. Communication, which
complimented their high verbal originality, and “negotiation” fostered students’ ability to “let
go” of their original design to produce a variety of ideas and to utilize their materials in
153

unconventional ways. For example, when waterproof materials were not available for a boat
design, the students used crayon wax to waterproof their cardboard.
The respondents emphasized how failure was an ingrained part of maker learning that
promoted flexibility in the GATE students. The ability to respond to failure by looking for the
flaws in their original design made an impact on their viewing and manipulating the figural
elements of their design “in order to redesign and succeed,” as Anvil2 (a teacher) explained. The
GATE students were observed to apply a variety of ideas to code figures such as shapes, animals
and they applied it in the way they considered multiple ideas to coding robots to accomplish
tasks such as plowing snow.
Flexibility: Interviews. The participants, such as Fanny, described the way in which a
“mental toolkit” of techniques equipped students to demonstrate flexibility within limitations,
variety, and choice of tools and materials. Brandy added that the tasks and the spaces gave the
unidentified students opportunities to take a design “plan on a piece of paper,” analyze it against
available tools and materials to come up with a variety of ideas that were constructed through
creative combinations and connections. These either economized their building time or
economized their choices of materials in limited circumstances. Fanny described students’
flexibility by learning “to use each little technique. Once they have that toolkit of techniques,
they are more capable of just building on their own.”
Nearly all of the classroom participants described how the GATE students demonstrated
flexibility in the ways that they were able to maneuver between analog and digital formats. They
made mental leaps by synthesizing their ideas through the medium that best fit their construction,
choosing among programming, physical building, and transferring content. Evelyn shared that
“they have that ability to think flexibly about different problems that other people with maybe
154

different [non-maker] experiences might not have gotten.” The students adapted to a variety of
strategies in their presentations using tools such as poetry, music, and Flipgrid, which was
integral to the entrepreneurial component of making a product focused on an end-user’s needs.
Similar to the unidentified group, the GATE students were given the opportunity to grow in
creative flexibility through limitations in materials and space, especially during virtual making
from home. Evelyn described it as “we can all be makers, and it doesn't mean I have to have a
hammer and nails and wood. It can be an art piece.” This high-level flexibility seen in some of
the GATE students resulted in constructions and projects at high levels of aesthetic form and
function.
Flexibility: Observations. Table 9 indicated that unidentified students in the maker lab
were between the developing and expert level for creative flexibility, which meant that students
considered multiple types of ideas in their approach to making. At both Anvil and Bevel
flexibility was revealed in the collaborative aspect of team roles, sometimes as the follower and
sometimes as the lead, while other students on the team negotiated ideas. The roles permitted a
division of labor and promoted efficiency of time to use their strategies as opportunities to
develop that came out of the design process through journaling, drawing, and diagramming.
Most of the unidentified students worked cooperatively holding discussions about choice in
materials and design as well as supporting the lead’s choices and, at times, disagreeing with the
lead. When the desired materials were not available the students worked to identify substitutes.
Finally, trial and error were both a symptom and a purveyor of flexibility.
The observation rubric totaled a score of 2.1, which indicated that GATE students in the
maker lab were at the developing level for creative flexibility (Table 10). However, the range of
scores also revealed that among those students there were some who were very high in flexibility
155

and some who were low. In general, the GATE students considered several types of ideas in their
approach to making. The students in the observations at Anvil, Bevel, and Fastener each came up
with three to five types of ideas related to the tasks in the maker sessions. In demonstrating this
CreaT they were able to respond to changing needs and ideas within the team that they were
working with, and it also allowed them to respond to failure and limitations on time and
materials. A teacher in the Anvil observation pointed out that frequent and strong communication
within teams promoted efficiency and an interchange of lead/follow relationships that promoted
flexibility of ideas. Flexibility, which had one of the highest increases in the survey data (Anvil),
was high among the unidentified students, but at developing for the GATE students. This aligned
with some of the interview data that pointed out that GATE students, at times, was focused too
much on either getting to the ‘right answer’ or that they pursued so many ideas so as to inhibit
flexibility because their end goal was to come up with the most ideas (fluency). Some GATE
students expressed that they did not want to put the energy into complex design because it was
too much work. Contrasted with that was the GATE students who were able to start and maintain
multiple ideas and sub-design components simultaneously, jumping from one approach to
another, unable to stick to one line of thinking long enough to fully develop it. This was a
symptom of very high flexibility according to Torrance (1962b).
Finding 1. Flexibility elucidated creative giftedness and validated the impact that OEs
have on GATE students. The makers’ space revealed high flexibility in some GATE students.
These students jumped from one approach to another unable to stick to a singular line of thinking
long enough to carry it to fruition. It also exposed those GATE students with low flexibility who
demonstrated rigid thinking habits due to their acclimation to solve problems quickly. Since the
nature of makers’ space tasks impeded quick solutions, those students who dispossessed intrinsic
156

motivation exhibited low flexibility. Among the unidentified students, the makers’ space fostered
flexibility through team interaction. It expanded their thinking from their initial localized task
criteria to the recognition of their product's relationship to fulfilling and serving the existential
needs of a community.
Finding 2. This approach to the tasks revealed that gifted individuals were adept in
systems thinking to be able to see the broader landscape of how multiple subcomponents of the
team’s design interlocked to form a working product. The unidentified students displayed ‘small
parts’ thinking which enabled them to pursue the small tasks similar to the sequential production
of factory line workers. Both types of thinking were important to maker constructions.
Gifted: Creative Thinking, Originality
According to Torrance (2008) originality indicates the ability to make imaginative,
mental leaps that are unusual, beyond banal or commonplace ideas.
Originality: Surveys. The survey responses revealed among most of the respondents that
the combination of rigorous, open-ended tasks, variety, and choice in materials resulted in
original products that depended on the unidentified student’s personal goals, interests, and a
design around end-user needs. A common theme among the respondents was a trend to create
designs and products that made a community, local and global, impact. For example, many
students designed and built constructions or machines that cleaned environmental domains such
as ocean pollution, or that rebuilt ecosystems such as forests and urban communities. Some of
those designs included urban parks, engineered plant seeds, ocean vacuums, and natural disaster-
resistant skyscrapers. The value in many of these products was in the problem space that they
occupied. Many of their designs were impractical to build at this time, but they tapped into the
fantasy component of innovation and imagination to create original designs and products.
157

The respondents reported very similar observations in their GATE students but shared
that they took their original designs to a more complex level that incorporated robotics and
programming. There were also examples of GATE students deriving original ideas out of
research and intersections of domain areas. The surveys were a representation of the result of the
facilitating role that the educators had in promoting the collaboration and communication needed
to push ideas past the obvious solutions to the maker tasks.
Originality: Interviews. All the participants shared how open-ended tasks that included
criteria for components of the makers’ design impacted growth in originality. The educators who
withheld sharing specific examples, or all the details of an expected construction observed higher
levels of originality. Allen noted that when his unidentified students were given a specific model
of an hourglass during their 30-second timer challenge, most of them designed a timer similar to
an hourglass. However, when the students were given the opportunity to problem-solve in their
teams through observation and discussion, they came up with solutions to problems that were
unique and innovative.
The participants shared that the GATE students’ originality occurred because they
launched their own interests to make products and prototypes that were expressions of their
content learning. “They always do it in a different way than I expect and it's always so much
better,” noted Evelyn. The makers’ spaces had an impact on groups of students by collaborating
to transfer content knowledge through their interests or through a targeted end-user’s need to
come up with uncommon solutions to problems. In particular, the GATE students demonstrated
high intellectual energy typical of nonconforming persons.
Originality: Observations. Based on the observation rubric, many of the unidentified
students in the makers’ spaces were between the developing and expert levels for creative
158

originality. The students developed uncommon ideas that some other students would have
suggested or built upon an existing idea for their designs and products in an uncommon way.
Again, the open-endedness of the maker tasks combined with end product must-have criteria
facilitated original ideas. At Anvil, during a reflective conversation, a female student shared that
the opportunity to design her own map on a grid with the constraints of time limits, materials,
and product size had an impact on making something unique. As she put it, original ideas came
because “you just get to do what you want to do.” She described that her ideas to design a “path
field” and adding pumpkins were original to her group alone. During the observations at Bevel
original ideas occurred in the same way one thinks of the unique details in Apple products.
Students used metaphorical and double entendre language in their titles (abstractness of titles),
came up with unique mechanical devices to enhance their products and games, and integrated
mathematics calculations into their game constructions.
The rubric of the GATE students’ observations yielded scores that indicated that many
GATE students in the makers’ spaces were near the expert level for creative originality. The
students frequently developed unique ideas that few other students suggested, or they built upon
an existing idea for their designs and products in a unique way. It was common for the educators
in the observations to facilitate originality through mini demonstration lessons. These gave
students insights into techniques or construction strategies that they applied to extend their
designs to create the complexity of the mechanical systems within their making. Most of the
students exhibited the phenomenon of maker confidence that made it natural for them to extend
boundaries beyond the common, expected outcomes of their products. Students transformed
mundane household items into additions such as furniture, fixtures, clothing, characters, and
other creative items to their overall constructions.
159

Finding 3. Open-ended, interest-driven tasks aligned to objectives and success criteria
were the mode in which maker confidence gave license to students to create original ideas and
interdisciplinary designs and constructions. Importantly, for gifted students, the convergence
between supporting their OEs and the opportunity to create gave them the confidence and
comfort level to display CreaT that they otherwise would suppress in a classroom setting, due to
the pressure to be “right.”
Finding 4. Originality emerged through collaboratively constructed designs facilitated by
educator coaching and peer ideation. These designs afforded the unidentified and the GATE
students the opportunity to develop and demonstrate their giftedness by producing
multidisciplinary products that were unique in structure and aesthetics.
Gifted: Creative Thinking—Resistance to Premature Closure
According to Torrance (2008) resistance to premature indicates the student’s ability to
remain open long enough for original ideas to ruminate.
Resistance to Premature Closure: Surveys. The majority of the respondents described
innovative and original designs and products that arose out of many of the unidentified students’
noticeable grit and perseverance which, in part, activated resistance to premature closure.
Students were observed to adjust their construction techniques when one attempt failed.
Evidence of resistance to premature closure included examples, shared by Fanny, of teams that
experimented multiple times with “scrap parts” and “household items” to piece together the most
stable structure that they could build. A notable life skill that emerged through this CreaT
element was autonomous problem-solving which Driller1 noted that “they were able to formulate
a solution to the process without being told the answer by the teacher.”
160

Many of the GATE students similarly made failure their friend as they allowed the
process to extend beyond initial conclusions to delay closure long enough to make the mental
leap to working innovative ideas. The respondents reported that the GATE students self-initiated
product ideas and utilized adult and peer feedback to improve upon ideas, which frequently
extended beyond the classroom. “Chisel1” (a teacher) pointed out how they also “made changes
after noticing what other groups were doing” and communicated the possible consequences of
those results.
Resistance to Premature Closure: Interviews. Three-fourths of the classroom-based
participants expressed that many unidentified students were able to remain open and delay
closure long enough to spawn original ideas; however, a minority of this group was able to do it
independently, while the majority were able to resist premature closure because of educator
facilitation, and still, some tended to leap to conclusions prematurely without considering the
available resources. Fanny described an example of effective delay was when students who were
constructing a boat were without “waterproof materials” and had to “look through available
materials to figure out” how to use melted crayons and plastic bags to waterproof cardboard so
that the boat would resist water.
The participants described a wide range among the GATE students of those who “want to
skip that completely and just go straight to the blueprint,” according to Eden, and those students
who, according to Evelyn, “were very inquisitive and wanted to know what would happen in
these 1,000 different situations.” Ellen added that most of the GATE students delayed closure on
initial ideas and solutions by incorporating research and collaborative discussions that “caused
them to see someone else's perspective or ideas and then change their mind” to mental leaps to
construct original ideas. The makers’ spaces had a positive impact on both groups as the students
161

who were strong in this subcomponent trusted the process to allow for the collaborative efforts of
their peers to influence their own thinking. The unidentified students showed evidence of this
CreaT with intensity in many of their teams.
Finding 5. Makers’ spaces pushed GATE students to adapt to failure and recognize that
their own intellect and independence were not sufficient to be able to achieve high creativity on
their first-level ideas.
Finding 6. The value of interdependence and exchange of perspectives that was needed
to take the mental leaps that made original ideas possible came more easily to the unidentified
students whose creative giftedness emerged through the subcomponent resistance to premature
closure.
Gifted: Creative Thinking, Documents
The documents provided vivid examples of the impact made on students CreaT by the
maker approach. Although many were already presented and discussed, the smallest of the
examples epitomizes the way in which materials, intentional tasks, play, trial and error, and
motivation all come together to move CreaT forward through the makers’ space. Among the
unidentified students, collaboration, and communication around the choice of materials and how
to connect and construct them revealed knowledge transfer through originality, flexibility, and
resistance to premature closure.
The document from the GATE students also portrayed moments of high-level CreaT.
That was seen in Figure 10 which was a close-up of the desert biome cactus. The cactus was
made of cardboard that had been cut into shapes and then slotted to fit on top of multiple pieces
to construct together as a 3D cactus. Evelyn shared that her GATE student, using the bare
minimum of “cardboard and hot glue,” cut out cardboard hexagons with slight variations in size
162

ratio “and then just pieced them together so it kind of holds itself together.” The result, according
to Evelyn was a seamless cactus “after spending a long time building it” wherein the hexagons
were indistinguishable from one to the next.

Figure 10
Cactus

163

Figure 11 was an example of the variety of materials and tools that were available to both
unidentified students and GATE students. It included a metal saw, nut drivers, plastic vials with
washers, screws, nuts, Allen wrenches, metal rulers, glue sticks, and a hacksaw. They all hung on
a pegboard. The cart had a plastic spiraled green tube running along the top connected by a round
black cap and a wooden dowel in between. The cart was made of pine and plywood.

Figure 11
Center Materials Cart

164

Additional documents that represented influence on the maker philosophy were provided
by GATE school participants, which included Figure 12 in which the Edger maker philosophy
integrated a structures design process and Kaplan’s depth and complexity prompts used to
prompt discussions about the details and ethical considerations that were so prevalent in the
maker tasks and constructions.

Figure 12
Edger’s Design Thinking Process and Depth and Complexity Icons

Note. From documents submitted by Ellen.
165

These documents represent some of the intentional choices by the educators that integrate
with the learning standards, the iterative, play, and discovery task process that elucidated the
creative giftedness in unidentified students and push the GATE students through the dimensions
of overcoming failure through grit and perseverance to progress through what Dąbrowski terms
“positive disintegration.”
Gifted: Creative Thinking, Conclusion
Many GATE students who frequently fall into the high-achieving category and many in
the intellectual category demonstrate low CreaT skills due to the typically modeled school
structure and its pressure, whether self-imposed or externally imposed, to attain a solution or an
answer in a short time; hence, stifling the resistance to premature closure, imagination, and the
willingness to extend beyond boundaries that ignites the subcomponents that make up CreaT.
Makers’ spaces are the venue through which, over time, those students have the opportunity to
break from those shackles to cultivate and discover creative giftedness. Unidentified students,
through makers’ spaces, are given the situational learning experiences, which are not present in
typical educator-centered classrooms, to demonstrate previously untapped creative giftedness.
Gifted: Critical Thinking
The study was conducted to gather data on the impact that the makers’ spaces had on the
CT of both identified GATE students and unidentified students and to explore whether they were
impacted differently. From the 12 a priori CT elements on the survey as well as the eight
subcomponents on the observation rubric I will share the findings of the data from the
subcomponents that emerged to represent the most significant impact on unidentified students
and GATE students as a result of the makers’ space intervention. I am going to discuss inference,
evidence, and the synthesis of purpose/summarizes topic or argument (concept, issue) as a
166

singular element which I will call purpose-concept connection. Notably, I am not discussing
some of the highest-scoring subcomponents from the survey. For example, calculated judgment,
which was the only subcomponent that scored the same between the two groups, was in essence
discussed above. Additionally, implication, which was one of the highest-scoring subcomponents
for both groups was also discussed earlier, but it should be noted that there was a wide gap
between the unidentified and the GATE group. Both groups demonstrated a high-ability to
determine what would most likely happen after a given scenario (implication) or what would be
the result of hypothetical modifications to their designs. The data revealed that GATE students
demonstrated this subcomponent with higher-level evidence primarily because of their ability to
hypothesize substantially more scenarios and ideas than the unidentified group. The GATE
group was also able to foresee more complex predictions and conclusions to their ideas and
designs than the unidentified group. Evidence was chosen because it was among the highest for
GATE students on the observation rubric and the survey, and it was among the subcomponents
with the highest increase from the beginning to the end of the year for both GATE and
unidentified students. Finally, I combined purpose and summarizes topic (concept) because, in
order to summarize, the students needed to synthesize the concept and the purpose of an idea
from design to construction. Purpose was among the top three highest subcomponents on the
survey, albeit in the middle of the scoring on the observation rubric. It was among the
subcomponents with the highest increase from the beginning to the end of the year, and it draws
parallels to summarizes topic, which was one of two subcomponents in which unidentified
students demonstrated a higher score on the observation rubric (Table 13). If CT is associated
with intellect (Kettler, 2014) it would be expected that the data reflect higher-level CT in the
GATE students than the unidentified students. What may be significant is whether there was
167

evidence of high-level CT in both subgroups as a result of their work and experiences in the
makers’ spaces. Table 14 represents the teachers’ observations of both groups’ CT.

Table 13
Critical Thinking Observation Scores for Unidentified and GATE Students by Subcomponent,
Corresponding Survey Code, and Total Compiled Score Based on the Shively et al. (2018)
Rubric; Unidentified (N = 3), GATE (N = 7)
CT component Mean
(unidentified)
Mean
(GATE)
SD
(unidentified)
SD
(GATE)
Total 2.33 2.33 0.508 0.487
Summarizes topic or argument
(concept, issue)
2.67 2.30 0.577 0.530
Considers previous assumptions
(assumptions)
2.50 2.00 0.532 0.598
Communicates PoV (first person
PoV)
2.00 2.60 0.0 0.417
Provides evidence of research
(evidence)
2.00 2.40 0.173 0.443
Analyzes data (analysis) 2.50 2.60 0.500 0.417
Considers others’ perspectives and
positions (third person PoV,
purpose)
1.8 2.20 0.289 0.530
Draws implications (implications) 1.8 2.40 0.764 0.443
Assesses conclusions (calculated
judgment, inference)
2.67 2.40 0.289 0.443

Note. 1 = novice, 2 = developing, 3 = expert

168

Table 14
Teacher Critical Thinking Survey Comparative Responses by Subcomponent With Mean and
Standard Deviation for Unidentified and GATE Students
Sub-construct/role
Unidentified
mean
GATE-identified
mean
Unidentified
SD
GATE-identified
SD
CT total 3.38 3.97 0.633 0.689
Issue 3.29 4.00 0.488 0.632
Purpose 3.57 4.09 0.535 0.539
Point of view 3.43 3.64 0.535 0.674
Assumptions 3.00 3.82 0.577 0.751
Evidence 3.57 4.09 0.535 0.539
Inference 3.67 3.80 0.517 0.632
Calculated judgment 4.00 4.00 0.577 0.894
Implication 3.86 4.27 0.900 0.647
Concept 3.33 4.00 0.516 0.816
Interpretation 3.50 3.90 0.548 0.876
Analysis 3.14 3.91 0.690 0.701
Explanation 3.14 4.00 0.753 0.632

Note. 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = most of the time, 5 = always

Gifted: Critical Thinking Survey, Quantitative
Quantitative data and qualitative data were used in the analysis of surveys. In the surveys,
the educators self-assessed their expertise working with GATE students. Because of the
embedded nature of CT in giftedness, it was expected that for educators with higher-level gifted
169

expertise, they would communicate an accurate assessment of observations of the CT construct
in students in the makers’ spaces components. evidence and purpose also had SDs indicating that
their unidentified students ranged from demonstrating these subcomponents from some of the
time to most of the time while the GATE students displayed CT characteristics at least most of
the time. Of the three highest-scoring CT subcomponents only implication intersected as one of
the three highest-scoring subcomponents for both unidentified students and for GATE students.
For the unidentified group, the other two high-scoring subcomponents were calculated judgment
and inference. The two remaining high-scoring subcomponents for the GATE subgroup were
evidence and purpose. In total, CT was observed in unidentified students on average more than
sometimes but not most of the time, and it was observed in GATE students most of the time up
to always based on the SD. However, it is important to note that based on my construction of
calculated judgment as a theme, it was the most complex of the subcomponents of CT, and that it
was not only the highest-scoring of the unidentified students but that it was equal in score
between the unidentified and the GATE students.
Based on the change from students’ beginning-of-the-year assessments on the TCT and
CTP (Table E10), the two subcomponents with the highest increase for unidentified students
were evidence and implication. Further, purpose and assumption tied for the third-highest
increase. Additionally, total CT increased in unidentified students from beginning-of-the-year to
end-of-the-year scores from benchmark to above benchmark. Among the GATE students (Table
E11), the three highest growth subcomponents were purpose, assumptions, and evidence. Total
CT also increased in GATE students’ beginning-of-the-year to end-of-the-year scores from
above benchmark to well above benchmark. The intersection of evidence, purpose, and
assumptions indicated that the impact that the makers’ space had on students’ CT was consistent
170

across both student subgroups. Evaluating the overall CT (Table 15) ability based on a singular
definition of CT illustrated the construct of CT to be exhibited by unidentified students in the
makers’ spaces between sometimes and most of the time and for GATE students most of the
time. Both of those subgroup’s overall scores essentially mirrored the total synthesized CT
scores based on the compilation of all the subcomponents. This demonstrated consistency
between the total compiled subcomponents scores by each definition with the overall definition
of CT. Lastly, the largest point gaps between subcomponents occurred in the areas of issue and
assumptions, which indicated that the GATE students demonstrated higher-level abilities than
the unidentified students to be able to identify the central issue or problem in the maker tasks or
in an aspect of the design and construction for their product or machine. It also pointed out the
GATE students’ ability to recognize and interpret bias and assumptions that were being made
from without or within a maker scenario and to effectively utilize background knowledge and
then transfer that knowledge to their making.

Table 15
Overall Educators Survey Perception of Students That Exhibit CT in the Maker Lab Unidentified
(N = 7)/GATE (N = 13) Comparison
CT
(unidentified)
SD
(unidentified)
CT
(GATE)
SD
(GATE)
4.0 0.816 4.64 0.505

Note. 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = most of the time, 5 = always

171

Gifted: Critical Thinking Surveys, Qualitative
Qualitatively, the surveys revealed that the makers’ spaces had an overall upward trajectory
of CT in the students who participated in the lab tasks. The following primary factors contributed
to this:
● collaborative observations and follow-up discussions
● testing and retesting of designs
● inquiry in the best scenario for the function of constructions
● complex consideration of form and function
● traversing between executable design and the purpose for the person using the device
Gifted: Critical Thinking, Inference
According to Bracken et al. (2003), inference requires interpretation of scenarios, and
product testing to infer conclusions based on the evidence of the way a scenario plays out. It is
overarchingly a frequently associated subcomponent of CT. It relates to the ability to determine
the best solution to a scenario, something that makers are continuously pursuing. If there was a
failure or a success in the process, inference asks students to interpret what was most likely and
what least likely caused it. Of CT’s total of more than 1,200 codes, inference was coded 106.
inference was one of the top three (unidentified) subcomponents of CT reported during the
surveys. It was at nearly the same level of observed frequency for unidentified students as it was
for GATE students.
Inference: Surveys. Based on common experience, when considering indicators for
identifying giftedness, lay practitioners frequently attribute inference to being a gifted thinking
skill indicator. In general, outside of similar graduated determinants from concepts such as
Bloom’s taxonomy, high-level inference is ascribed to giftedness. The respondents for the open-
172

ended questions revealed that inference occurred in unidentified students through interactive
opportunities to critique the reasoning of their teammates’ ideas and designs. The students were
frequently observed predicting the outcome of their design in the testing phase, and some were
able to identify flaws in designs prior to testing them out. The respondents attributed CT
opportunities to the choice of availability of materials, which were typically household items or
recyclable materials. The unidentified students were able to predict flaws in design each other’s
products such as “balloon racer” vehicles (Bevel1) and then come up with a solution. Educators
supported this thinking according to Fanny by “encouraging students to think of materials in the
sense of what they do rather than what they are.”
GATE students similarly used product test/retest situations to interpret the results with
teammates through discussion and analysis against their designs in order to identify what most
likely made the test successful or unsuccessful. When they were successful, they continued to
identify most likely scenarios for improving the design and construction which occurred through
the blueprints or were at other times by changing materials. In addition, the GATE students
demonstrated inference through programming. They had to determine the most likely or least
likely results based on changes in their codes. For example, “Chisel2” (a lab facilitator)
described the students’ the ability to consider the “orientation” of a base along with the angles
and distance of the walls of a maze as they programmed a robot to “maneuver through” the
maze. Frequent iterative testing and retesting was a common theme among most of the
respondents. Inference was built through their observations and discussions following testing and
redesign. This suggests how gifted elements, such as inference, may be a learned giftedness that
transfers across scenarios in the multi-situational context of a makers’ space. It expands the
makers’ space into a laboratory that, in effect, creates a gifted measurement tool.
173

Inference: Interviews. The participants emphasized that in the makers’ spaces, projects
were rarely completed in one setting leaving open opportunities for students to infer conclusions
to the next steps in the product design process. Since hypotheses/test/retest was such a prevalent
aspect to makers’ spaces, teams were frequently challenged to determine most likely or least
likely outcomes based on their observations of the tests or even during the design phase. In the
unidentified students, this emerged in the frequent occasions to create stable constructions or
machines. A participant shared that inference was a CT skill that emerged out of the context of a
maker lab and purposeful facilitator. Fanny described how promoting empathy for the end-user
facilitated this process of drawing conclusions based on evidence of those needs.
It's not an intuitive thing, especially for kids, because they'll often build something like a
lunch box, and it's made out of bloated dark duct tape, and I'm like okay well that's great
but like how is it specific for schoolchildren or how is it specific for astronauts or, you
know, so you have to really get them to think about who's the end-user and then like how
is it specifically helping them. And that really helps them narrow down again their
constraints and their requirements because it's going to be different for every person that
we build for. I use exercises that have them learn to build from a place of empathy, which
helps them define their success.
Six out of nine participants noted that inference frequently occurred because of the educators’
strategies and coaching and that it was accelerated by the students’ interest through the openness
of the maker tasks. The students were coached to consider the end-user when designing.
The unidentified gifted students displayed inference in the way they interpreted information
about the needs of the end-user and then inferred the details of the construction task, the design,
174

and the choice of materials. Brandy described this in a task that required the students to transfer
historical content about societal levels to the product.
I gave very very basic instructions of what the pyramid needed to be and just allowed a
lot of room for them to interpret it how they wanted to. So, I feel like leaving a lot of
open-endedness kind of allows them to take it in a lot of different directions.
They applied inference in their choice of technique when constructing and building. For
example, students deconstructed the parts of other products, such as clothing, or a machine to
analyze how to reconstruct their own version of the product. In this way, they used CT to
strategically determine which techniques best supported their constructions. The majority of the
participants described how the students inferred how to reduce the complexity of their designs in
order to make their prototypes more mechanically efficient.
Most of the participants described content domain factors that contributed to the GATE
students’ application of inference. These included applying choice of materials, scale,
measurement, angles, and points of connection and Evelyn added “they can tell you if they're
using a pulley or a wheel and axle, a screw or an inclined plane, things like that. They'll be able
to tell you what they're using so they could” reason through the best way to construct their
design. The use of strategies and organizers was mentioned by all the participants as a factor for
facilitating inference. Ellen shared,
The design process is a thinking process, and so there's usually a circular kind of diagram
that I would use that, that helps kids to kind of see that we get to this test and redesign
test redesign. There's usually a visual that we would use to help get them through that
process so that they can understand how it evolves because you start with one thing and
you end with this thing but how did we really get there. Sometimes it's hard for them to
175

see they're going to end up somewhere different. A diagram really helps them see how
that process works.
Eden expanded on the use of strategies that guided reflection about choices between design
options that would lead to the goals they set for their products:
blueprinting to determine scaling and precise measurements and sketching for their visual
brainstorming. They can get a lot of ideas out and then it's easy for them to see. Okay,
that's a really cool idea but realistically as I think about it, I'm not going to be able to
build that, you know, or this is you know something that might be more manageable.
They had conversations with their teammates to synthesize into and agreed upon one
idea.
As teammates, they had to demonstrate that they understood the evidence used to
determine likely scenarios that saw them take a “blueprint and bring in precise measurements,
scale it, and when teams decided are they going to construct, what were the dimensions to fit a
full size or a scaled model. They had to synthesize agreed-upon ideas and be able to tell you
what they were using and why,” according to Eden. That is important because students were able
to explain the purpose of their design. They were using 21st century skills to transfer simple
machines, through mechanics and physics, to identify the best simple machines to create a
complex design. The level of inference was essentially indistinguishable between the
unidentified students and the GATE students, which suggests that the makers’ space had a more
substantial impact on improving inference in unidentified students and that inference may have
already been high in GATE students without much opportunity to improve. The impact that the
makers’ spaces had on unidentified students was to increase their capacity to use evidence and
176

predict likely outcomes of their designs due to the maker process and a focus on the provable
results and empathy for the end-user.
Inference: Observations. Although inference was not an identified component of the
observation rubric, there was observable evidence that inference occurred during the maker
sessions. A similar component that required the students to infer conclusions through reflection
and interpretation was assesses conclusions. The unidentified students demonstrated an expert-
approaching level in the makers’ spaces on the observation rubric. The students exhibited
reflection of idea evolution on argument development. Inference came out of the exchange of
perspectives about whether changes to the teams’ designs would impact the constructions in a
positive or negative way. An example was in the design and construction of the lever and hoop
game. Students demonstrated evidence of inference through argument and reasoned critique.
However, they come to conclusions through a combination of test and retest methods as well as
conclusions made. During the diseño project at Anvil, the students had to interpret the teacher’s
clue cards into their design process. One team interpreted the “religion card” into their map
design constructing a statue of a priest while another team appealed to the approving official’s
Catholic beliefs in their proposal letter. These were examples of how the collaborative aspect
combined with frequent situations which required interpretation to improve designs impacted the
unidentified students to develop inference.
The GATE students demonstrated a level on the CT rubric that was beyond developing
with some expert level evidence in the maker lab. The students exhibit reflection of idea
evolution on argument development. Ellen commented that most of them were developing with
that idea of reflection on idea evolution and “I think that's because in fifth grade this is kind of
where we first really start to push it with them, you know specifically.” An example at Anvil was
177

of a fourth Grade GATE student who concluded, after receiving new information about the
context of his audience, that he needed to redo his design proposal letter. An example in another
group demonstrated the student's ability to reflect on the test-retest model in her design process
to make conclusions about the best choice of materials, tools, and application of construction
techniques. Nonetheless, the way in which makers’ spaces promote inquiry, communication, and
reasoning played a part in the moderately high-level of inference displayed by both groups with
nearly equivalent evidence in the data.
Gifted: Critical Thinking, Evidence
According to Bracken et al. (2003), a student with strength in the evidence subcomponent
can interpret a scenario and identify specific information that best supports a conclusion.
Evidence: Surveys. The majority of the survey respondents identified evidence as an
example of the iterative process in the makers’ spaces in the unidentified group. Driller1 and the
majority of respondents reported that students “were able to formulate solutions to the process”
through “a lot of trial and error.” According to Brandy, that led to using evidence of the results to
“adjust their strategies,” connections, and designs. According to Anvil2, the maker process
taught the students “to use failure to draw conclusions and move to a new idea” by “asking
questions about design flaws revealed” by the failures during the testing process.
The majority of the respondents’ GATE students emphasized the importance of inquiry
and critical reasoning in their teams’ discourse with each other. Allen shared that in comparison
to the unidentified students the GATE students “were more flexible in their redesign in order to
achieve their goal. They looked for the flaws in their original design in order to redesign and
succeed.” Many of the respondents described using guided strategies such as “shared inquiry
discussions” described by Evelyn to encourage students to use evidence to draw inferences, and
178

interpretation from the analysis of their designs and test results. This occurred in both the hands-
on building and the programming using block coding such as Scratch and Ozoblockly. The
groups demonstrated the use of evidence in the way they analyzed what went right and what
went wrong when they ran their programs. That evidence led to modifications and iterations of
reductions in complexity to make it more efficient for the students to find errors, which is
another example of how evidence and inference worked together. Based on the survey results,
both the makers’ spaces made an impact on both the unidentified students and the GATE
students through a PBL approach that enabled inquiry, communication, and frequent
opportunities to identify specific information and details that supported the conclusions that were
made to modify and improve their maker projects. GATE students demonstrated evidence in a
more precise process that went deeper into the intricate details of the test results.
Evidence: Interviews. For the unidentified students the participants described the way
that observation, reflection, and analysis of evidence impacted students’ CT. More than half of
the participants specified the importance of determining criteria for success prior to the students’
making. Typically, that was the result of brainstorming ideas for a task in which the students
organized their ideas into success criteria in their journals or organizers. Fanny shared that “we
do talk about what would make a successful project. We came up with our list of what made a
good design for this product.” The iterative process that the teams followed in their making and
testing gave them the opportunity to identify flaws and success based on the evidence of the
construction test results. Brandy explained how the students discussed evidence of the design
process to present the results of their maker projects:
They like to go through and explain to you what specifically they did to get to this point,
and what they had to change and how they had to maybe put this hoop a little bit and
179

higher stack it up on something. So, I feel like especially when they figure it out, they
like to tell you, this is exactly what we had to do to get it to actually work.
During another description at Fastener, Fanny explained the process in which the teams observed
the working mechanics of their pancake factory and concluded that there needed to be a human
element involved to make decisions about flaws that required modifications to the machines. In
these ways, the makers’ spaces had an impact on the students’ opportunities to demonstrate and
develop evidence that supports conclusions to their maker process.
The majority of the participants emphasized the way in which communication and a
framework for measuring success facilitated the expression of evidence in the GATE students.
Evelyn explained that “we measured how often they spoke articulately, but then also what
evidence they gave to support their opinion and whether they agreed or disagreed with someone”
on their team. Cate described the process used to encourage the students to assess the influence
of the information from their process of making:
They meet for 10 minutes, come up with questions, come back, and they're able to
question one another for a certain amount of time. At the end, they conclude, and I do
give points for citing evidence, supporting, and thinking. There is a winner, but there's
not a prize. I told him it's about the ride and the experience and, yeah, so they love it.
Evelyn added that “sentence frames like, I agree with so and so, and I want to add, and then I
respectfully disagree with so and so” were tools for the students to build collective evidence
within their teams. Based on the interviews, both the unidentified and the GATE students
manifested CT by drawing out information from the maker process that led to conclusions to
improve and modify their designs and products. This was accomplished by a facilitated approach
180

by the educators to empower the teams to work together and communicate toward that end.
There was not a marked difference between the two groups’ indicators of evidence skill.
Evidence: Observations. The unidentified students demonstrated a developing level in
the makers’ spaces according to the rubric. At times they accepted evidence at face value, even if
incorrect or inadequate to support an argument. For example, at Anvil, students used evidence of
new information from one of the task’s clue cards to initiate discussion about the next steps on
the team’s design and letter proposal. The student claimed that new roads needed to be added to
the diseño design based on the evidence that came out of the team’s discussion. He incorporated
this idea without considering or expressing the relevant need for multiple roads but rather relied
on information that was observed out of context for the reason behind the need for roads. At
Bevel, some students gave weight to personal preferences in their choice of materials and design
details over the objected reasoning to its practicality by teammates and even the teacher. Yet,
other students in teams used an analogical approach to determine various ways to build their ball
launcher concluding that a lever was the best mechanism. In this episode the students come to
conclusions after discussing the evidence that came out of observing their test/retest process. The
unidentified students in the observations exhibited evidence that the makers’ space gave them the
opportunity to evaluate the effective mechanical working of their constructions based on
observations and critical reflection on their testing processes.
The scores on the rubric indicated that the GATE students demonstrated a level that was
beyond developing with a range from high-to-low expert level evidence in the makers’ spaces.
The majority of students demonstrated evidence that they supported their arguments using
information from appropriate sources. At times they accept evidence at face value even if it may
have unknowingly been an inadequate or incorrect claim. Students at Anvil indicated that their
181

diseño drawings reflected evidence from their prior research on ranches. At Bevel, it was
observed that the GATE student's choice in materials and tools was the evidence of research. In
an observation from Bevel, the GATE student traveled back and forth between his team and
another team to observe their test/retest process to bring the ideas and evidence from the
effectiveness of their design back to his team, eventually developing his ball shooter to be able to
achieve higher accuracy when shooting the ball. A GATE student at Anvil guided his team to
scrap their original design and start over after recognizing that their construction was too similar
to another team’s that he considered mundane. At Fastener The student demonstrated the ability
to improve her design based on evidence that her wall connections could be strengthened and
responded to teacher feedback and suggestions about how to improve upon the structural balance
and strength of her making. The student demonstrated satisfaction that since the technique
worked it was the best choice among other possibilities, such as taping, stapling, gluing
techniques to connect walls. The observation data revealed that the makers’ spaces had more of
an impact on the GATE students’ ability to synthesize information from the process and the
results of their constructions to make interpretations about the need to modify or otherwise
‘tweak’ their maker products.
Gifted: Critical Thinking, Concept-Purpose Connection
Concept-purpose connection includes the two a priori codes concept and purpose because
during the coding the data and the participants revealed a connection between the two. This
connection working together demonstrated how the connection was the result of higher-level CT.
According to Bracken et al. (2003), this subcomponent of CT embodies the students’ ability to
organize information to gain an adequate understanding of the underlying ideas of a scenario. By
being able to do that, the student can then identify a central problem to overcome to succeed at
182

the maker task by understanding and aiming for the primary objective behind the product or
construction. Students who are strong in this area of CT are able to use inquiry and reflection to
effectively analyze whether the design achieves its purpose in the building and construction of
the prototype or product.
Concept-Purpose Connection: Surveys. Respondents to the survey shared that the
unidentified students were able to verbalize the purpose behind tools and materials in relation to
achieving the functional concept of their designs. An example that Frieda shared was of students
who “built towers from scrap parts and figured out that they needed a solid foundation for them
to work well. They asked questions like why isn't it stable? What can we do to make it more
stable?” This process led to using those parts to reinforce the tower bottom to be more stable.
The respondents described using strategies such as concept attainment which assists students to
grasp a concept by comparing and contrasting examples that exemplify the attributes of a
concept against examples that do not contain the attributes of the concept. This resulted in the
ability to generalize and identify rules and concepts of systems. By understanding systems, the
students were able to conceptualize how flaws in those systems resulted in imperfections, which
led to generalizations such as that machines can cause people harm. Most of the respondents
attributed this development to students’ own critique of each other’s reasoning behind a concept
or purpose. However, some respondents disputed that the students at this age were capable of
this level of CT such as Ellen who stated that “finding flaws in others' reasoning is too complex
of a concept at this age level. Students sometimes disagree with the ideas and process proposed
by another student and will articulate an alternative.” The ability to summarize topics and
concepts came about because of the maker tasks and gave this group of students to grow in this
area of CT much unlike opportunities in a typical classroom.
183

The respondents, such as Eden, shared that an effect of the makers’ space intervention
was that students “intuitively used inquiry and reasoning to figure out how to take their design
from blueprint to actually building it,” or from its concept to a fulfilled purpose. Similar to the
unidentified group, the choice in materials and even colors played a part in analyzing whether
those materials accomplished the design purpose. Chisel1 gave an example:
Some groups reasoned that they would need popsicle sticks as a base for their boat so that
the boat could actually hold weight without sinking. Many students thought they should
build up walls so that the weights wouldn't slip off the boat. Some groups thought they
would only need to use foil since they had seen a demonstration showing that a flat piece
of foil would float in water whereas a balled-up piece of foil would sink.
Additionally, according to Ellen, reflection and “feedback from peers and adults” contributed to
students' ability to narrow the focus on the concept of their maker projects. Some respondents
including Fanny mentioned how a team bridged engineering and characters from their language
arts units to be the imaginary end-users for their maker products to “make their life easier.”
Another respondent explained how the GATE students considered how their incorporation of
measurement and mechanical configurations moved a theme forward in the teams’ miniature golf
designs which synthesized the measurements and mechanics of the final construction to the
various aesthetic themes and concepts that the students chose for their park. Both groups
demonstrated concept-purpose connection in their making and were able to create complex
systems and products with their materials. The GATE group demonstrated more of an ability to
recognize the connection between the concepts and purpose of their designs and extend it to
aesthetic representations.
184

Concept-Purpose Connections: Interviews. During the interviews, inquiry,
communication, scale, choice of materials, and measurement continued to be identified factors
for demonstrating and developing concept-purpose connections in the unidentified group. Allen
elaborated on the communication and inquiry impact as students make claims such as “it says we
have to include an x, y, z, and that design won't allow for it. So, I have seen a couple of examples
of students critiquing each other for the positive and in it being received well.” Fanny shared that
“we practice making lists of materials, practice drawing to scale and in 3D because that way
they'll know concepts of drawing things to scale, drawing things in 3D, lifting materials which
are all important for communication.” As they grew in their ability to compare their concepts to
the purpose of their constructions, Fanny mentioned that students grasped that “simplicity was
way easier than complexity as they would go along and realize that multiple mechanisms didn't
work.” She described the evolution of how students recognized the importance of purpose and
function as a concept of success over complexity for the sake of extravagance in their building.
She shared how particular tasks built these skills. For example, students were asked to consider
the end-user’s purpose by conceptualizing a car built for animals such as an elephant. Brenda
spiraled it back to communication and collaboration sharing that the impact on concept and
purpose was a result of “actively listening, collaborating on ideas, and trying to problem-solve.
Some of them were working on amplification systems, and they were working on what materials
help sound travel better. So, they were working on some pretty heavy-duty concepts.”
In describing the GATE students, the participants such as Esther shared how concepts of
systems, “size and mechanics'' were adapted for “aesthetic” impact for end-users’ purposes. For
example, such as electric current, coding, and lighting transformed into wearable data gathering
185

systems for health monitoring, which according to Ellen, “She collected data. She showed how it
works. She created this wearable and all these different ways to use it.”
Some participants shared how the GATE students had an awareness of differences
between themselves and the unidentified students. In some sense, the action pattern of the
students exhibited assumptions that their unidentified peers did not analyze and draw up designs
adequately. The GATE student may not verbally dismiss other ideas, but by acting independently
of the unidentified peers they demonstrated that they bring assumptions into their peer
relationship. At the same time, these students exhibited an openness to ideas that they played out
through the test-retest process. Scale, choice in materials, and measurement continued to impact
concept and purpose. All but one participant described how students recognized themes and
concepts in their environment such as Evelyn shared translating “government symbols and …
monuments” to scale along with Eden’s observation of symbolic concepts that achieved the
purpose of appreciation and gratitude by most of the GATE students:
They wanted to say thank you to the veterans that was representative of something. Some
were really thoughtful above and beyond the thank you for your service. There were
several students who had veterans in their families. They were able to create something
symbolic about their medal construction that went deeper than just the thank you for your
service to our country.
Finally, Eden also pointed out the way that working through this concept-purpose connection
process builds the students’ mental stamina. “So, I think all of those skills, the problem-solving,
critical thinking, empathy, and relationship-building with each other.” Both groups responded
similarly to the maker intervention by demonstrating concept-purpose connections, and empathy
for their actual or perceived end-user was an essential aspect of that impact. The GATE group
186

chose to work more independently at times, which is a common trait (Webb et al., 2007, p. 27),
while the unidentified group thrived more on collaboration.
Concept-Purpose Connection: Observations. The scores on the rubric indicated that
the unidentified students demonstrated an approaching expert level (based on the rubric) in the
maker lab with a range from developing to expert level. They showed the ability to organize
information leading to a mostly adequate understanding. As an example, a group at Bevel that
was creating a math game was able to interpret the teacher's task explanation and quickly
communicate a design vision with each other. Two female students did most of the talking while
Two male students listened and watched the other two draw and discuss. While drawing out a
serpentine road marked by mathematically represented markings. Student 3, who observed the
discussions said, “now I understand what you are doing.” Student 3 observed that the female
student drew two houses as endpoints to the game path and gave clarity to the purpose of the
game. This was an example of how listening and observing during making promoted concept-
purpose. In the Bevel example, the verbal and visual exchange of conceptual ideas helped their
teammates grasp the purpose of their game design.
The rubric scores indicated that the GATE students demonstrated a developing level in
the maker lab with a range up to expert level. They inconsistently demonstrated the ability to
organize information which may lead to adequate or inadequate understanding. Ellen shared that
“we have a few who are probably more profoundly gifted who might be able to consistently do
that but in general, most of our fifth graders are developing.” For the most part, the GATE
students did not express a summary of ideas or topics but rather asked questions to gather and
analyze information internally. They then tended to act upon that analysis without explicitly
summarizing and conceptualizing. In other words, they jumped past the conceptualization stage
187

to the purpose of their maker constructions. This may align with systems thinking ability which
pieces together the multiple unconnected problems to construct a system as a whole. It is
evidence of a broader vision by those students to thread together numerous designs and more
complex problems to find practical solutions. The observations data gave new insights into the
way the concept-purpose connection manifested in the two groups. For the most part, the
unidentified students exhibited a higher level when applied to singular faceted problems, while
the GATE students tended to bypass the connections within the immediate problem and instead
put mental effort into adding onto the situation to develop a system of working problem parts
with the goal to make them work together for a complex product.
Critical Thinking: Documents
The documents gave snapshots in time of the impact that the makers’ spaces had on CT.
For all students in the study the unique attributes, resources, and pedagogical choices inherent in
makers’ spaces contextualize an environment that incubates CT. The labs promoted multiple
ways to learn. Most students were working on their projects while the teacher remained available
at a station for students to bounce ideas off of and to receive feedback. The ‘wallpaper’
(informational and conceptual posters, student work) in the labs inspired CT in the students.
There were instructional inspirational posters that reminded students how to problem-solve and
persevere, videos, brainstorm charts, criteria charts, diagrams, flow charts, student blueprints,
student projects, and graphic learning tools that contributed to CT via inspiration and
connections to background knowledge. Students had variety and choice in where they wanted to
work, at tables, on floor rugs, or outside classrooms, which allowed them to improve their
environment to maximize CT. This promoted self-regulation and a broader understanding of the
central issue through multiple opportunities to learn about the content behind the making project.
188

CT was developed by understanding the central problem and making decisions about the array of
materials and tools that had an impact on design and the stability of structures while also being
able to function.
Photos of students showcased students using kitchen materials to work out scientific and
engineering principles in Figure I6. They connected the concept of a system that created a flow
to set up their timer which was observed for evidence of the product’s intended purpose. In
Figure 13 a group of unidentified students used screws to connect the pieces of the wood to make
the goalpost and one long screw along with glue to secure the platform. This is an example of the
students’ making decisions about materials and conceptualizing game systems through
measurement and scale to achieve the purpose of a working game.

Figure 13
Cardboard Constructions

189

For the unidentified students the documents revealed teams of students using CT to
identify the most appropriate materials (e.g., masking tape, blue plastic cups, pencils, crayons,
Petri dishes, cups) and tools (e.g., scissors, drills, clamps, hammers, screwdrivers) to poke holes
connect circuits, assemble machines and fixtures, and build cause and effect mechanisms. The
photos demonstrated a distribution of roles such as doers; verbal reflectors; recorders; builders;
getters; and similar collaborative positions. This collective aspect of maker learning portrayed
students who exhibited an expectancy of a useful product based on their attentiveness to the task,
verbal reasoning, and dialogical exchange of perspectives. In the photos, students were seen
developing and applying concepts through engineering and internal machine functions to
understand and to judge the beginning of the curvature. Figure 13 was an example of how
materials, tools, and collaboration merged to impact CT in the makers’ spaces in which students
partnered to determine the best outcome of their problem by trying to make the construction
align with the design. The tactile component of making also brought out artistic CT through
theatrical and visually artistic expression as students tested out their designs through tableaux,
sculpture, and visual design. These examples demonstrated how the makers’ spaces and maker
learning provide a unique opportunity for students who may not have signaled giftedness in
normative classroom instruction were given the chance to develop and display CT in authentic,
purposeful situations.
The documents revealed an impact on GATE students similar to the unidentified
students. Additionally, it was revealed that the motivational impact on the GATE students (see
Table 16 for a comparative) had a stimulating effect on the flow of CT. The construction of the
Washington Monument (Figure I10) was accompanied by a caption from Evelyn that elucidated
how the students analyzed a transfer of architecture and engineering to available materials:
190

We focused on the government symbols and monuments. One of my groups chose to
make the Washington Monument and it was taller than me. They figured out how to use
PVC pipe and construct a platform to put it on. They carried this big, enormous
monument like Cleopatra being carried on their shoulders. They insisted on little U.S.
American flags and they insisted on making sure there were exactly 50 around the base of
it so it was more accurate. It was. I love when they do stuff like that. The PVC pipe is the
actual Washington Monument. It was built out of cardboard. But the PVC pipe held it
because it was too heavy to be supported by anything else.
Another unique component of the impact on CT was in their ability to transfer visual information
from an internal image or their two-dimensional blueprint to a three-dimensional design that
extended the boundaries of constructions seen in the unidentified students (Figure 14) which
capture the essence of the setting using recycled materials. The cacti demonstrated an ability to
combine 'mathematical design vision' to the engineering of the 3D figures like the bobcat, but
especially the cactus which had a quality of almost non-observable gaps or visible points of
attachment between the various smaller components that make up the whole cactus. Photos from
Maker chats illustrated the process by which multiple levels were created in the cardboard walls
of the house using notches that slid over each other from one wall to another. The educator
communicated the skill of using a sharp object to make holes in the cardboard that connected
walls held together by buttons to promote variety in technique and materials for the student.

191

Table 16
Teacher Survey on the Motivation Comparative Responses by Subcomponent With Mean and
Standard Deviation for Unidentified and GATE Students
Sub-construct/
Role
Non-identified
mean
GATE-identified
mean
Non-identified
SD
GATE-identified
SD
Motivation total 3.92 4.25 0.599 0.648
Interest/value 4.29 4.36 0.488 0.505
Beliefs/self-
efficacy
4.00 4.27 0.577 0.467
Attributions 4.00 4.27 0.816 0.467
Goals 3.29 4.00 0.488 0.775
Partnership 3.71 3.91 0.756 0.831
Self-regulation 3.86 4.00 0.378 0.632
Cognitive load 3.57 4.36 0.378 0.674
Emotion 4.14 4.82 0.378 0.405

Note. minimum value = 1; maximum value = 5

Figure 14
Sonoran Biome

192

In summary, the documents gathered in the research supported the findings from the
surveys, interviews, and observations. They aligned with Figure 15 in which GATE students
demonstrated the characteristics at least most of the time in CT while the unidentified students
also ranged from the low end of most of the time. For both groups, motivation performed highest
among the constructs indicating that the design laboratory atmosphere motivated students to
want to demonstrate mastery of their learning through hands-on building and constructions.

Figure 15
Overall Educators Survey Perception of Students Who Exhibit CT, CreaT, and Motivation in the
Maker Lab Unidentified (N = 7)/GATE (N = 13) Comparison

Note. 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = most of the time, 5 = always

193

Constructionism and the Design Thinking Process
Finally, the data repeatedly revealed the impact that was made on development, and the
revelation CreaT and CT in both the unidentified and GATE students emerged because of the
design thinking process and the pedagogy of learning by building, or constructionism. In
conjunction, the methodology of learning and the emergence of these thinking skills constructed
the maker confidence in upper elementary students that laid the foundation for them to
demonstrate giftedness in applied creative thinking and marketing; hence, a kind of
entrepreneurship as an aspect of giftedness. Students were seen negotiating their ideas, by giving
and receiving feedback, that empathized with the needs of theoretical and actual end-users. It
was reminiscent of the students in school who, to the dismay of administrators, established
mutually beneficial undercover candy and gadget selling businesses to their student peers. The
particular situational context of maker learning gave students the opportunities to develop
empathic skills, in negotiation, leadership, and marketing, which contribute to innovative
entrepreneurship. The set up the rooms including the materials and tools may have contributed to
the ability to incorporate constructionism and the design thinking process. See Appendix L for
room designs by school. The data revealed that both unidentified and GATE students’ CreaT and
CT, the what, were impacted in the elementary makers’ space, the where, through motivation,
the why, and the pedagogy of constructionism, the how (coded 450 times), which was in part
systematized through the design thinking process, the why, (Figure 7), coded 252 times, and it
was delivered through educators’ (coaching) moves, the who. The amassing of knowledge on top
of prior knowledge occurred via the thinking skills of CreaT and CT contextualized through
authentic tasks and building (referenced 377 times) in the elementary makers’ spaces. This
situational context was observed to accelerate that construction of knowledge through the
194

process of active building, crafting, tinkering, coding, designing, and constructing; in other
words, making. Brenda shared that evidence arose through ideas constructed in the “makers’
spaces allowed students to become more aware of the design thinking process” as well Eden
noted “to take their design from blueprint to actually building it.” Most of the participants and
respondents described ways in which empathy was associated with customers/end-users to guide
the way in which students defined their problem, or “created experiments” and “research the
topic problem, be empathic to it” and “interviewed clients” to “gain greater understanding” “to
make a plan” so that the team’s prototype “would model ideas” that met the constructed criteria
for the construction. The majority of the educators including Evelyn, Allen, and Fanny,
respectively, described implementing “an instructional model that was founded in inquiry,
problem-based, versus project-based, design thinking and making” that allowed them to “play
around with the materials and build various devices” and “draw a design layout” “to formulate a
solution.” For example, Fanny also developed the need to connect empathy to ideate, end-users
were identified as a “superhero, astronaut, mermaid, squirrel” and asked to design living spaces
(i.e., building, park, house, apartment, store, coding programs) in context (i.e., in space,
underwater, in the community, in a mall, in a biome) within which the end-user would reside or
spend time and “respectfully communicate with their peers ... what sort of problems would they
face.”
The design thinking process gave the students the medium in the context of the makers’
spaces to apply CreaT and CT skills authentically, and similar to the way innovative think tank
companies such as IDEO work out their own inventions. Ellen described identifying “a problem.
Here's some research solutions, and now we're going to test it, and then redesign, test, and
redesign. We use that kind of circular thinking.” Fanny added, “The notebooks [and organizers]
195

were to have them plan and conceive in a tangible way before we even put our hands-on tools
and materials.”
Multiple participants, including Brandy, noted that the open-ended aspect of the tasks
resulted in “outside the box” (fluency, fantasy) constructions that “turned out completely
differently” (resistance to premature closure) based on the creative input and analysis of the
products’ purpose. For example, Fanny added that when designing a tree for animals the groups
had to reason the implications for “what does the canopy do and how should it be shaped?” The
knowledge “was more meaningful to them because it helps them connect their experiences to
more of what they're learning.” The educators’ constructionist pedagogy, emphasized by
Andrew, Brandy, Cate, Eden, Esther, Fanny, using “multiple techniques” and “iterations”
(process) over “end-products.” When coding, the educators set up collaborative observer partners
who, through analytic discussion, identified phrases and patterns that informed the teams’
programs to accomplish their planned-out designs and sometimes “take it a little bit further.”
Design thinking (Figure 7), and constructionism may have had an extensive impact on the way
that makers’ spaces promote CT and CreaT, summarized in Table 17, which emerged from the
analysis of the documents. It meant that constructionism in the makers’ spaces was sectioned out
into three concepts and their contributing factors. The growth of all these components was
influenced by feedback that occurred through peer collaboration and communication as well as
through the maker educator coaching/facilitating model. Each of those design components was
constructed through contributing subfactors represented in Table 18.

196

Table 17
The Concepts and Their Elements That Impacted the Thinking Skills as Evidence in
Constructionist Pedagogy and the Design Thinking Process
Qualities of desirable
construction
Play and curiosity Task progression
Connectors Connectors Connectors
Materials Partnerships Design/learning reminders
Tools (technology and hand) Technique Technique
Structure/sturdiness Background knowledge Retest
Test Engineering/architecture
Workspace Meaningfulness and
aesthetics
Durable mechanics Audience
Player controlled Display

197

Table 18
The Factors and Subfactors of the Design Thinking Process in Makers’ Spaces That Had an
Impact on Creative Thinking and Critical Thinking
Factor Subfactor 1 Subfactor 2 Subfactor 3 Subfactor 4
Discovery Ask Research Brainstorm
Strategize Empathize Ideate Analyze Limitations
Design Sketch Blueprint Journal
Create Prototype Construct Present
Test/retest Failure Analyze Goal
Iterate Revise Modify Improve
Define Problem Task

Giftedness Summary
The intervention of the elementary makers’ spaces revealed that CreaT and CT were
upwardly impacted in both unidentified students and GATE students. Most noticeable in the
results was the positive impact that it had on CreaT in the GATE students and the CT abilities in
the unidentified students. As will be discussed in the next section, that motivation contributed to
the students’ success through failure, goal attainment, and attribution to success as a result of
hard work and the communication and collaboration through teamwork. This was especially
revealed in the GATE students who were typically accustomed to the ‘right answer’ coming
quickly and easily. Those students were initially unmotivated and unproductive; however, over
time the maker mindset built their confidence which led to increased CreaT skills.
Conclusion and Findings for Research Question 2
198

Based on the results of this study, elementary makers’ spaces may have a positive
influence to increase CT skills and particularly on CreaT skills in both unidentified and identified
gifted students. The data suggests that the task-based design approach of maker learning
supported the OEs of gifted students, to subsequently impact an increase in the CreaT skills of
these individuals.
RQ3: What Is It About an Elementary Makers’ Space, Particularly Motivation, That
Contributes to the Development of Critical Thinking and Creative Thinking Outcomes?
The intent of RQ3 was to determine whether aspects of motivation arose from upper
elementary grade students’ participation in a makers’ space and better understand whether those
aspects contributed to students’ CreaT and CT. If learning is the focus of educational institutions
and if CT and CreaT are essential elements and products of that learning, then it is vital to know
how learning occurs. In social cognitive theory, motivation is a crucial element toward that end.
The a priori nodes based on the literature are shown in Figure 16. I will discuss the results of
these codes and then discuss the concept of the maker mindset that emerged as the avenue for
motivation and its ensuing CreaT and CT. Additionally, while not originally an aspect of the
research question, there emerged dichotomies between motivational aspects of GATE students
and unidentified students in the maker space. These data will be discussed in the results,
especially when it aligns with the corresponding OEs applicable to gifted students (Dąbrowski,
1966; Daniels & Piechowski, 2009).

199

Figure 16
Motivation Conceptualization of Subcomponents

Note. Adapted from “Engineering motivation using the belief-expectancy-control framework,”
by R. E. Clark, and B. Saxberg, 2018, Interdisciplinary Education and Psychology, 2(1), pp. 2–
22 (https://doi.org/10.31532/interdiscipeducpsychol.2.1.004). Copyright 2018 by R. E. Clark,
and B. Saxberg; Applying the science of learning (pp. 40–41), by R. E. Mayer, 2011, Pearson
Education, Inc. Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc.

200

Motivation Overall
I will discuss the overall results of how the elementary makers’ spaces impacted students’
motivation, CreaT, and CT skills, focusing primarily on subcomponents emotion and interest,
and self-efficacy/beliefs and attributions (Table 19). I will then discuss the concept of the maker
confidence, which had an organizational impact on the students’ motivation as it related to
learning factors, growth mindset, and eventually emerged as a contributor to maker confidence.
Based on the data, the subcomponents culminated to build self-regulation in the students through
mental effort, decision-making, and reasoning. This accounted for much of the content and skills
transfer, which may have occurred through CT, both from the classroom and through the maker
learning process (Elliott et al., 2005).

201

Table 19
Educators Survey Responses by Motivation Subcomponent and by Role With Mean and Standard
Deviation for All Students
Subcomponent
/role
T
mean
T SD
LF
mean
LF SD
*A
mean
*A SD
All
educators
mean
All
educators
SD
Motivation
total
4.09 0.649 4.03 0.687 4.33 0.985 **4.15/
***4.11
0.680
Interest/ value 4.33 0.478 4.17 0.378 4.29 0.458
Beliefs/self-
efficacy
4.17 0.514 4.33 0.488 4.21 0.509
Attributions 4.17 0.618 4.33 0.690 4.21 0.588
Goals 3.72 0.752 3.67 0.787 3.71 0.751
Partnership 3.83 0.786 4.33 0.488 3.96 0.751
Self-regulation 3.94 0.539 4.50 0.488 4.08 0.537
Cognitive load 4.27 0.575 3.50 1.113 3.83 1.169 4.00 0.757
Emotion 4.56 0.511 4.50 0.535 4.83 0.408 4.59 0.501

Note. minimum value = 1; maximum value = 5; Teacher (T), Lab facilitator (LF), Administrator
(A)
* Administrators did not rate all subcomponents
** (all roles equally weighted)
*** (combined roles includes all subcomponents)

202

Motivation Overall: Surveys
Eight subcomponents were scored and ranked based on the survey (Table 19). Overall,
the educators assessed that the students demonstrated motivation to have matched and exceeded
the defined indicators of motivation most of the time (Table 20). Figure 17 illustrated that
administrators observed motivation at a greater level and frequency than lab facilitators and
teachers. Teachers were given the most extensive surveys with primary and secondary
component ratings on both their GATE and unidentified students, while lab facilitators
responded to the prompts through the lens of their students as a whole. Administrators were
given the shortest form asking them their macro perceptions of motivation. These surveys were
administered at the midpoint time or later in the school year just before the COVID-19 closures.

Table 20
Educator Survey of Students’ Overall Motivation in the Maker Lab Comparison by Educator
Role
Construct/
educator role
Teacher N = 9 Lab facilitator
N = 7
Administrator
N = 6
Overall
N = 22
Motivation 4.13 4.08 4.50 4.15

203

Figure 17
Motivation Bar Graph

Table 19 represents a more dissected representation of motivation by educator roles. In
this case, the total motivation rating was the result of compiling subcomponents of motivation
that came from the study's a priori motivation codes. The overall motivation score and the total
motivation score were nearly identical and strengthened the consensus that the students
demonstrated the indicators of motivation most of the time and that the makers’ space had a
positive impact on motivation. Additionally, both tables were aligned by roles, with
administrators giving the highest ratings followed by teachers and lab facilitators. Since lab
facilitators saw more students in the lab than the other two roles, the evidence indicates that at
the very least, students demonstrated the motivational indicators most of the time.
204

While looking at the results by educator role gives insight into perspectives and expertise
that educators bring to their ability to evaluate students’ motivation, it is also worthwhile to note
the results by each school considering the context from which the educators were assessing
motivation. Table E12 provides a glimpse of both the a priori and emerging codes with details on
the survey participants’ educator roles and their type of school. The two highest-scoring schools
were public schools, while the two lowest-scoring schools were independent schools. There does
not seem to be a correlation between the school having a predominantly GATE population and
its educators rating motivation higher since the highest and the lowest scores are from GATE
schools.
Finally, Table 16 compared the motivation levels in the school makers’ spaces between
GATE students and the unidentified students. In every subcomponent, motivation was rated
higher in the GATE students, between most of the time and always, compared to the unidentified
students, which scored between sometimes and most of the time.
Responses revealed that the respondents believed, according to Esther, that a “huge part of
learning is motivation” and that “making was systemic” which resulted in students being
motivated to
create, build, and make for an authentic purpose and audience. We absolutely see
increased engagement [throughout the maker process], decreased disruptive behaviors,
and drive to succeed in improving and making headway in the process [emphasis added]
versus being fixated on a product.
It was observed by Bevel2 (an administrator) and then Brenda that motivation increased through
the hands-on building and “meaningful discussions amongst groups and collaboration,” “which
were positive and encouraging as they worked through the design process. When there were
205

some frustrations, students often worked together to try to problem-solve.” Bevel2 continued,
“Motivation was extremely high, coupled with creativity and purpose, enabled the students to
build prototypes hat they were proud of.” The majority of the respondents stated that maker
learning supported and impacted intrinsic motivation because of the experience and overall
excitement to do their best or to get it done even though there’s no reward waiting for a winner.
Driller1 added that the making and the design “was so personal” to the students that it built their
desire to learn and work through the process toward a goal.
The respondents’ most noted subcomponents that came out of maker learning were
interest and emotion. Frieda shared that since the students “enjoyed and showed interest” in their
design and in building “students worked hard and attributed their success to effort.” Ellen and
Eden noted that interest fueled curiosity, “enjoyment, engagement, focus, their passion to tinker
and leadership in students who wouldn't normally take on that role in the classroom. Brandy
added that they thrive in a design environment.” The majority of respondents attributed interest
to higher levels of learning and content transfer and noted that this promoted problem-solving
more so than classroom-situated problems. Chisel1 juxtaposed the interest and emotion
subcomponents:
I've seen students work hard on a project when they showed enjoyment and interest in
their work. One example is when I introduced Scratch. We focused on simple and short
pieces of code to animate the letters in their name. After showing the students a couple
different things they could do, students had the rest of the class period to work on their
names and add any other animations, backgrounds, and other decorations they wanted to
add to their project. Throughout the class period, all students were focused on their
project, asking questions about how to create something they were unsure of how to
206

make happen, and focused on creating extremely creative products that went beyond the
direction I had given them during the “do together” section of the lesson.
Most of the respondents concurred that the emotional component connected to “extremely high”
motivation according to Bevel2 “coupled with creativity and purpose, enabled the students to
build prototypes that they were proud of.” It was emphasized that the ideation process itself
made them “very emotionally invested” in their designs even prior to the construction.
The majority of the respondents noted self-efficacy/beliefs increased due to the makers’
space intervention as a result of attributions. At least half of the respondents attributed the
growth to accomplishing a design goal by overcoming imperfections and sometimes seemingly
insurmountable problems. According to Fanny, the students recognized that the effort “to
complete the challenge rather than delay their building” showed motivation to “achieve” a goal
“by continually and willingly looking for other solutions (flexibility) to complete the challenge
rather than prove that their initial design was correct.” Lastly, as a result of the surveys,
observations and interviews, partnership trended as a contributor to the students’ motivation in
the makers’ space. More than half of the respondents attributed the “efficient and cooperative”
team grouping aspect of maker learning as a motivating factor. The educators pointed out that
questions, sentence stems, and facilitated interaction promoted partnership. Chisel1 shared that
“being in a very small group ensured that all students are always engaged in the work.” This
contributed to a “common goal” according to Brandy “and motivated the students to accomplish
that goal as a team.” The results for motivation indicated that “student engagement in our
makers’ space was consistently high” according to Andrew, which may have contributed to a
positive impact on CreaT, to increase their focus to be able to apply the mental effort needed for
increased CT.
207

Motivation Overall: Interviews
Nine of 11 of the participants identified emotions and interests as subcomponents of
motivation that were impacted positively by the maker experiences. Repeatedly during the
interviews, the participants emphasized that empathy-building was a strategy used to contribute
to a design process that made products geared toward the end-user needs. Ellen shared that “they
had a connection to the problem to really understand it because you have to understand the
problem, or even understand if it is a problem. The students were invested in their problem so
that they had some kind of connection that would spur them forward.” Multiple participants
shared that about 90% of the students liked making, increased content transfer, and Brandy
mentioned “got super passionate about the products that they were learning about.” Frieda added
that “80% of my students communicated that they like the freedom the makerspace provided in
creating their own designs especially for engineering.” Nine of 11 participants attributed
emotions and interest to the progressive small success that students experienced when they
overcame obstacles. Fanny shared how that motivation erupted from a metacognitive coaching
practice that focused on process, growth mindset, which also built self-efficacy:
On the motivation front, I always did a show and tell at the end of our project. However, I
always reserved a few moments for a volunteer to come up and present a project they
believe is a failure. The reason I did this was because I wanted to celebrate all efforts and
point out the value of learning what doesn't work. I always stressed to the kids that the
projects that didn't work are just as important and the effort of their builders just as
valuable as the projects that did work. I also tried to make a distinction between projects
that failed because of a failed experimental design and a project that failed because it was
not done with attention or effort.
208

Eden explained that “they always demonstrated an internal will to accomplish their goal because
even though we provide them with criteria and constraints, the projects and ideas always come
from the students themselves. They are motivated because it is their own idea.” Fanny, who
shared that the students were “very emotionally invested in their creations” also pointed out the
playful aspect that increased motivation. “They would do funny things like they would narrate it;
they would make it look silly, they put eyeballs on it. It is just a fun place for physical humor to
come out.” Brandy added additional details:
Probably, 70% of them could come up with a use for something that they made even if
something was far-fetched. I would say the majority of the class was good at doing that
because then when it turned out and they had this cool end product, it was more
meaningful to them and it helped them connect more with what they're learning when
they have that experience to look back on.
Additionally, Evelyn shared that by infusing students’ personal interest into the designs as well
as facilitating collaborative “teamwork” through the design thinking process. Brandy noted that
this built “a lot of anticipation to go in and build.” Eden explained that this made the “designs
very personal because whatever you've put out there to share you really believe in it. It's just
allowing themselves to be vulnerable with one another. It takes a level of trust and maturity for
the kids.” Allen added, “they were really enjoying the experience and really motivated by the
nature of figuring it out on their own.” Lastly, the participants revealed that the aspect of
technique- and skill-building added to the students’ vested interest and creativity because,
according to Fanny, it too gave them ownership over their design choices rather than “just
straight up showing them how to do it.”
209

The majority of the participants described growth in students’ self-efficacy/beliefs and
the attributions that their hard work would achieve success. The participants’ responses suggest
that over time, the process components within the makers’ spaces contributed to the students’
ability to jump in to creating and going through the design process on their own. They also
described resilience-building to accept that failure was ok. Participants described and
transformation in which the students realized that it was more about the process than the product
that may not come out the way they thought it would. The participants observed that students'
self-efficacy increased, and they were motivated to initiate their own maker projects and
products. Often, what they made independently was based on their own interest and heightened
beliefs. Fanny stated,
In my second year with them, there was a huge boost in their confidence around the
makers’ space activities. First-year students didn't really want to show you what they
made. They were more scared and hesitant about jumping into a build. Second-year like,
they jump right into it, they kind of know you know they know what they're doing. They
know how to use tools and they're not scared of the materials. So, they'll go right into
building. They're much more content with the building process and that at the end
whatever they come up with, even if it doesn't work, they're not distraught over it,
because they kind of understand making it work is not the point.
Six out of eight of the participants, including Frieda, shared that 65 to 70% of the students
expressed that they were good at what they were doing “navigating through and participating in a
makers’ space” and were able to explain the usefulness of their product constructions. The
participants expressed that they believed that the growth in their self-efficacy as a result of
210

applied content in a problem space context would have a long-term impact on the students’
success. Brandy explained how the variables of maker learning built on this subcomponent:
Thinking outside of the box, and problem-solving. I feel like that is definitely something
that they're going to have to do in their life. You might not have the exact material that
you want to create this product, but you have all these other things so what can you do to
solve your problem using what you have in front of you. And working collaboratively
with people I feel like are the two big things that are going to follow them. You are
capable of doing that so the confidence thing to just knowing that you are capable of
building something.
Evelyn noted, too, the struggle and beliefs growth with GATE students who “still have those
perfectionism tendencies. But a lot of the kids were okay with the failure, and they found the
humor in like, I just totally destroyed that because that's all part of the learning process” and
“they do learn to ask for help a lot sooner, than [GATE] kids” at other schools who do not
participate in maker learning. Eden added to this idea that “Some of the [GATE] students say
“I’m not good at this” when it comes to our maker projects’” but increase their self-efficacy “by
the end of the year” in the makers’ space by building their attributions. Evelyn explained that
“There were times where a student did not put in as much effort as they might have been able to,
generally they see a difference between their project and others and usually attempt the next
build with more effort.” The participants considered the test/retest “struggle” of blueprinting and
then the building partnership of making as crucial to the students’ belief that their effort will
result in success (attributions). Five of eight of the participants, including Eden, also associated
their reflective culminations in which students determined “what worked, why it worked, what
did not work, why it did not work, and what would they do differently if they were to do this
211

project again or on future projects” to the students’ attributions growth. For most of the
participants, including Brandy and Frieda, 90% to 100% of “their individuals and/or teams”
expressed that “their effort in the makerspace determined whether or not the project was either a
success or a failure.”
Lastly, partnership was revealed during the interview data analysis. When asked whether
their style of communication was more casual or formal, Seven of eight of the participants
indicated that they leaned more towards the casual style, especially the lab facilitators, which
indicated that they were viewed as a social partner. Brandy shared “maybe a hybrid both. When
I'm explaining the lesson goals and objectives and what the expectation is, it's more formal direct
instruction, but when it comes time for them to actually work on the projects, it's more casual.”
The participants shared that they build alongside the students and play music to promote a
climate of openness where the educator’s role in the lab was to guide the learning, creating, and
thinking. Choice was left up to the student. The educator was a sounding board for the student to
get feedback or ideas on how to move forward on a design and product. Fanny explained,
I don't get to define success for you like in the traditional teaching structure where you
set a bar and the kids have to jump to this bar and then you've called it good, right? In this
structure, the kids have to go what do I want to build and what do I want it to do? They
have to set their own little bar. You're just trying to tell them how to get there.
Additionally, the participants explained that integrating humor, acting as a thought partner, and
modeling techniques increased the level of partnership experienced between the educators and
the students.
Regarding GATE students, it was revealed by eight of the nine classroom-based
participants that they may have too high a belief in their ability at times, so they rushed in to
212

make without having planned an informed design. This displayed an imbalance between ability
and belief (Figure 1, Chapter 2). Eden shared that they then got frustrated because they did not
self-regulate to set and accomplish goals:
We have kids who are kind of the type of gifted kid who would drive a regular ed teacher
crazy because they're like, they go straight from they don't want to do any of the steps,
let's just get to the product. I know what I want to build then this is how I'm going to do it
and the steps just frustrate them. And then you know you have those who might start out
thinking they have a goal but aren't really sure how to take the steps to get to that goal or
how to follow those steps. So, it's kind of a continuum there, you know.
Effort and a sense of healthy competition went hand in hand with the gifted, whereas effort was
not as high when the student was making without a partner with whom to compare constructions.
The interviews revealed that the makers’ space impacted the students’ ability to have the
resolve and the successful experience to know that they could accomplish tasks and goals. Their
maker confidence was described to increase so that they believed that if there was something
they wanted they could just make it themselves.
Motivation Overall: Observations
Since the schools closed before the scheduled observations there was not an opportunity
to examine the progress of observations over time. Hence, the observations provided a snapshot
of maker learning rather than seeing a maker task work to fruition over the course of a few
sessions as initially intended. From my observation notes of a group of four at Bevel, in which
the lead student was the designer, two of the other members participated by following her
directions while the fourth member continued to only observe. This may indicate that the student
was more analytical in the process and chose to participate after he was confident that he could
213

contribute. It may be a result of being an English learner and the need to make sense of the
discussion and task to feel confident about participating. It may indicate that he did not find
value in the project, although later when he participated, that action nullified this idea. In all of
those scenarios, the openness of the maker task gave the student the freedom to pursue his
interest and pace his individual contribution to the team. The students were observed to be
engaged and interested in their making, in observing, and responding to each other’s designs and
constructions. There were multiple times when the students were observed to verbally express
enjoyment in developing and testing out their ideas and designs. The students enjoyed the roles
within the team, whether they were assigned or whether they naturally emerged. Most of the
students exhibited persistence and the active choice to analyze and confidently suggest new
aspects to the team’s design that created challenge and enjoyment for the user of the product,
thereby demonstrating beliefs. The designer in the group came up with a description of the
product design. She was left by the others in the group, who trusted her to finish, to work on
subsequent tasks to contribute to the design. She exhibited mental effort and confidence to be
able to complete the design on her own.
The observations revealed motivation results from the collaboration between GATE
students and unidentified students. The GATE students built patience and resilience as a result of
peer encouragement from unidentified students to keep trying through failed tests. The
unidentified students demonstrated an increased ability to think through variations in design as a
result of interactive discussions, reflections, and questions with GATE students. The educators
were observed to promote partnership suggesting tools to use and encouraging partners to assist
with narrowing down their ideas when they overthought their designs. For most of the GATE
students, the heightened motivation was also observed to improve their self-regulation. Because
214

of the maker context, I term this phenomenon maker partnership (Figure 18). Maker partnership
is akin to student-centered learning and stands in contrast to teach-centered learning follows an
external > internal > external pattern that knowledge and ideas are externally instilled into the
learner, then understood by the learner internally followed by an outward external performance
demonstrating that knowledge and learning. In situational learning contexts such as makers’
spaces, motivation and self-regulation have been shown to be more of a significant relationship
for GATE students rather than “typically achieving” students (Ben-Eliyahu, 2019, pp. 1–4). The
educator simply created the guidance and the experience for the natural flow and opportunity that
making afforded for each student to rise to his/her own potential. The regulated conditions such
as cognitive load and reflection suggests a social-emotional learning benefit to build each
student’s self-efficacy and self-regulation. Finally, the students persisted by looking around,
observing, and partnering with other students working nearby. This type of unintentional
collaboration occurred in the maker setting and benefited students who may not have had an
active partner or who may not have grasped a concept or an idea at first. The students expressed
through their facial expressions, jovial rhetoric, and their persistence in positive emotion—
motivation. The students were not necessarily competing for a prize, but they were competing for
their own satisfaction and against the comparative product of other teams. The observations
revealed that makers’ spaces had an overall positive effect on the students’ motivation which was
observed the majority of the time.

215

Figure 18
Maker Partnership

Motivation Overall: Documents
Analysis of the documents revealed a positive impact of motivation in the subcomponents
of interest, mental effort, beliefs/self-efficacy, and partnerships based on photos of students
working together and their facial expressions. Motivation was embedded into the maker schedule
for Anvil in Figure I11. The schedule explicitly noted that students work in groups to rotate
through five activity task centers to motivate them to learn more about the regions of California.
Finally, in Figure 19 the teacher demonstrated how to create multiple levels in the walls using
notches that slide over each other from one wall to another. She held it up to the camera to check
for understanding. This promoted opportunities for the student to use multiple-level stories in a
building. By building skills, the educator promoted self-efficacy. The intersection of the
216

demonstration and the continued work adds to the cognitive load. The student observed the
educator while continuing to build. Additionally, room layouts (see Appendix L) contributed to
motivation in that students had access to variety and choice of materials and tools (Martin, 2015)
along with the open movement to walk through the space to access what was needed. Every table
had pencils and paper left out to promote the design thinking process and communications by
making it easy to sketch an idea for brainstorming and visual communications.

Figure 19
Maker Chat: Multiple Levels

217

Finding 1
Students’ personal interest in the maker tasks was high. This may have contributed to
higher engagement and focus necessary to exert effort to initiate and carry forth maker tasks to
meet and extend beyond criteria. Makers’ spaces act as a bridge to students who may only want
to pursue their own passions to move toward growth interests. This occurs through the
collaborative support of a team to work together. The open-endedness of maker tasks allows
students to develop new interests (concluding design) while simultaneously pursuing their
personal interests by working on a part of the team’s overall design and construction.
Finding 2
The opportunity to design and construct according to choice and interest increased
students’ emotional investment to make products with the end-user’s wants and needs in mind.
The emotional investment is supported by the maker partnership relationship between teammates
and the educator. This was buttressed by students’ own research and empathic awareness of
those needs. Maker partnership opened up the opportunity to demonstrate giftedness in the
leadership category and motivated makers to take calculated risks to reveal their CreaT ideas.
This phenomenon will be explained further in the following discussion around the construct of
maker confidence.
Maker Confidence
Maker confidence as a concept was introduced in chapter two. I will describe how maker
confidence contributed to motivation as conceptualized through other concepts and
subcomponents such as 21st century skills, growth mindset (sub coded as endurance, reflection,
and openness to adapt), grit, products (useful and innovative), maker mindset as well as the
themes educators moves (Table E7), the design thinking process, and constructionism, which are
218

discussed in the other RQs. These all had an impact on motivation and contributed to the concept
of maker confidence. Confidence and its synonyms appeared more than 120 times in the research
data indicating that it was frequently identified as a manifestation of maker learning. The concept
of the maker mindset (Figure 20) encapsulates the organization’s approach and its values behind
building student agency (the intangibles) that includes the idea that motivation arose and was
framed by making, the tangible (Irie et al., 2019). Those values, dispositions, and beliefs were
lived out through opportunities in which students make to learn (Laurillard et al., 2013; Papert,
1999; Sreekanth et al., 2018) through experiences that were playful, collaborative, required grit
to embrace and overcome failure and a growth mindset that focused on skills rather than abilities
(Martin, 2015). The survey respondents emphasized that having this mindset helped “bring their
culture, family, values, beliefs into the knowledge construction process” (Peterson, 2003) which
resulted in increased self-efficacy. Additionally, there was an intended effort to promote social-
emotional development through this mindset that resulted because the stakeholders valued
social-emotional development ahead of the academics. These two foci in themselves impacted
the high motivation results.

219

Figure 20
Maker Mindset

Note. Adapted from “Making sense of “maker”: Work, identity, and affect in the maker
movement,” by S. Marotta, 2021, Environment and Planning. A, 53(4), pp. 638–654. Copyright
2020 by Steve Marotta; “The Promise of the Maker Movement for Education,” by L. Martin,
2015, Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), pp. 30–39.
Copyright 2015 by Lee Martin.

Maker Confidence: 21st Century Skills
21st century skills is an area of learning application that educators recognize as a crucial
component of academic and social development in the realm of situational school site education.
The data revealed the makers’ spaces and maker learning provided an impetus to develop
autonomous entrepreneurial roles, and at times mentoring roles through 21st century skills
220

(coded 229 times) and that they were a contributing factor in the development of CreaT and CT
in both unidentified students and identified GATE students. Fanny shared,
Many of the kids were very willing to help each other along by spotting each other,
gently pointing out how to correct their stances, and sharing tricks and techniques that
they learned. Part of this was because they wanted to show off their own skills, but
another part is that I really feel that they were aware of how much they rely on each team
member to be successful in order for the whole group to complete a goal. In this way,
students very much see each other as mentors and partners as much as they see me as a
source of knowledge and help.
Maker learning embedded collaboration (94 references) and communication (166 references) of
ideas and plans by which students refined their thinking to strengthen creativity. There was a
mutual benefit between the unidentified students and the GATE students via collaboration and
communication as seen in this description from an observation at Bevel:
The GATE students tended to go deeper with an idea. For example, the GATE student
who wanted to build a bridge stuck with the bridge idea but experimented with multiple
designs using multiple materials such as cones, ping pong balls, hot glue, turning the
bridge upside down, testing its stability and strength to incorporate it into a functional
aspect of how the bridge may be part of the game. An important aspect of this was that
his ideas garnered fascination from the unidentified classmates and, in turn, promoted
their own ability to think beyond boundaries. This intensified when he was asked
questions about his reasoning requiring him to be able to communicate the idea and how
it connected to the overall ideas of the group's game design. Leadership qualities also
were incubated through this process.
221

These two “Cs” were the means by which components of learning such as background
knowledge, multimodal processing, organization, and elaboration came about. Fanny explained,
“We really practice our communication skills two ways, through the discussions and then
through the notebook reflections. We need to really practice that.” All of the participants
described the “interpersonal collaborative skills” growth and “meaningful experiences” that also
occurred as a result of the situational learning of the makers’ spaces. Students relied on each
other in order to sharpen their thinking and accomplish goals. There was a spiral effect in which
the individual had an impact on the team’s thinking skills and the team reflected that impact back
on the individual. The data revealed collaboration was most efficient and productive in teams of
three. Allen added details:
I saw that teams work together with really good communication and was really clear
about “I should try this,” or “Hey you do this while I do this.” The division of labor was
clearly communicated and sometimes it's okay to just follow. The right size group makes
possible that good communication and helps them stay efficient: a balance of lead and
follow. More than three, and you get too many arguments or disengagement because
somebody feels like they don't need to participate because everyone else will just pick up
the slack. And sometimes with two, there's not enough conversation or not enough even
disagreement, to make it interesting or to promote growth, or to stimulate good ideas.
Collaboration between students occurred:
● by brainstorming (36 references)
● by testing/retesting (184 references)
● through effort (128 references)
● in small groups/teams (838 references)
222

● with technology, coding, google apps (165 references)
● through research (96 references)
● in hands-on work
● on challenges (129 references)
● on problem-solving (32 references)
● to combine ideas
● to build (393 references)
● to construct (77 references)
● to compose music
● to journal (25 references)
● to choose tools (95 references)
● through perspectives (86 references)
The data revealed that about 85% of students communicated with educators, parents, and
peers verbally, in writing, or pictorially through tables or by blueprint:
● style
● design vision
● design revision
● thinking
● pictures
● point of view
● writing
● reasoning behind choices
● ideas
223

● intentions
● preferences
● results
● frustrations
● negotiations
● common learning
● style
● critique
● feedback
● hypotheses/conjectures
The results were constructed products which were the result of applied CreaT and CT to
make and design them in a better way. For instance, negotiations between students at Bevel
caused them to elaborate on an original 2-D board game to construct a 3-D math game that was
an architectural representation of brain dendrites. These products epitomized a philosophy that
giving student teams as well as individuals the opportunity to discover, problem-solve, and
innovate will result in transformational learning and achieve the oft-cited yet infrequently
accomplished idea attributed to Karl Fisch that “We are currently preparing students for jobs that
don’t yet exist, using technologies that haven’t been invented, in order to solve problems we
don’t even know are problems yet” (Dɑvïd, 2017, Answer section, para. 1). According to Beers
(2010), the default approach to accomplishing 21st century Learning for at-risk learners is an
inequitable focus on the use of technology only for content remediation rather than for CreaT
and CT as a making tool. The participants revealed that technology used for coding may impact
future employability and entrepreneurial skills. Makers’ spaces and maker learning may be an
224

answer to a more equitable approach to technology. It approached learning and growth from the
maker mindset of evoking thinking skills, content knowledge, and cognitive growth rather than
invoking it. It is where learning happens because, as Chuck E. Cheese exclaimed, “A kid can be
a kid!” (RaptumTrolls, 2014), and Esther added,
because it connects them in ways that we don't ever expect as adults you know when we
put parameters on kids. That's what they do, they do whatever you ask them to do but
when you take those parameters off, which is what the makers’ space really lets you do,
then, you know, no holds barred, and so it makes the world much bigger in that they have
access to tools and techniques into mentors and masters and experts that they wouldn't
have had, and then also smaller because they feel like they can really solve problems,
they don't feel like they can't do something just because they're a kid, they wonder what
other people have already done it.
Maker Confidence: Growth Mindset
A growth mindset, described in Chapter 2, can be applied across domains whereas maker
confidence is specific to maker learning; yet once it is achieved it will benefit other areas of
school and academics. A commonality of maker learning is that students learn in a domain-
general setting that promotes endurance, reflection, and openness to adapt to limitations in time,
space, materials, and the personality of one’s group (coded 160 times). Over time, endurance and
self-efficacy in unfamiliar challenges and circumstances were improved as the educators
reported an intentional focus on growing growth mindset, adaptability, and process vs. product
success. Ellen explained how these components contributed to maker confidence:
So, it's, how do we fail forward and how do we take those failures and learn and grow
and not look at them as a failure, but an opportunity? We change that mindset into a
225

growth mindset. And then by the end by learning this new mindset their confidence has
spectacularly, I mean just hugely grown. And you see that in their attitudes and their
behaviors and how they voice different things.
Evelyn described the growth from “the beginning-of-the-year when students who were new to
the instructional model felt like they were not “good” at many things due to a fixed mindset
because the previous year(s) was/were easier.” The participants shared that they responded to
“I’m not good at this” by saying “yet.” An aspect of this emerging theme, noted by all of the
participants was that it was cultivated by the educators’ efforts to “build rapport” and cultivated a
trusting partnership between themselves and their students. This trust created an open
atmosphere of both physical and emotional safety which encouraged adaptation to a variety of
resources and circumstances, as well as vulnerable reflection resulting in endurance. Educators
accomplished this by connecting with students' emotional states. This included “checking in,”
showing empathy when team members disagreed, and actively listening to the ideas of the
students who explained their reasoning behind their design choices. At times educators supported
the students who were struggling to get started on a task by suggesting ideas or by displaying
other projects geared towards inspiring ideas. For example, an educator who modeled safety by
wearing goggles assisted a student through a mental block by navigating the student through
possible projects that included kaleidoscopes, rooms in a building, lamps, pachinko, and other
marble drop games, puppets made out of socks, paper, gloves, masks, hats, kazoos, and multiple
more projects.
When students’ work was obviously not aligned to the educator’s skill level, the
discrepancy and faults were overlooked, and instead, the mental effort along with the positive
design and construction skills and choices were reinforced. Fanny noted that during virtual
226

making, the educators pursued the idea that “internal motivation was far more important in a
distance learning setting than in a classroom.” She added, “It was apparent that self-motivation,
critical thinking, and creativity were strongly at play in these [maker] activities because students
were at home, along with family and they did these activities because they wanted to, not
because they had to.” That produced a phenomenon of a digital partnership that emerged as the
educators successfully bridged the divide between being physically present and yet connecting
pedagogically and emotionally.
During work sessions, the educator encouraged and supported the effort by explaining the
uses and applications of the techniques that the student was learning to apply. That toolbox of
techniques was a foundation for the students to remain open to adapt to situations in which the
preferred resource materials or tools were not available to use. That same partnership was
observed between peers, which also resulted in a relaxed atmosphere that promoted endurance.
For example, at Bevel (Figure I6) the female student held up one canister to test the sand flowing
from the top to the bottom canister. The male student observed very casually leaning on his
elbow. He seemed to enjoy watching the process and reflecting with an interested smile. The
female student had a focused, inquisitive look as she positioned the canister and the tube to have
a flow of sand through it. Students were working out scientific and engineering principles. They
looked comfortable working together and exhibited a partnership of collaboration by their joint
focus on solving the problem together. This openness and use of reflection on historical context
were evident in Figure I1 photos of Jamestown (documents; abstractness of titles, elaboration),
and Figure 6 (documents; abstractness of titles). Brandy commented, “They use all completely
different materials. Students used wood, construction paper, paper plates, cardboard, popsicle
227

sticks, fabric, paint on black construction paper, screws used as a part of a sarcophagus, silly
string, and thin wooden sticks.”
Educators promoted reflection through discussion, journaling, and open-ended
questioning techniques. These examples highlight possible objections to the value of maker
learning as simply “playing around” or merely discovery learning. These crucial skills bridge
design and the manipulation of materials to purposeful function and form in the making process.
This both identified and resolved a central issue and problem with an outsider’s view of making.
Is it just art? Is it just engineering? It is both and then some. Growth mindset was a subset of the
maker mindset (Figure 20), which was analyzed in depth in Appendix O. It encircled the
endurance, reflection, and openness to adapt to situations that are required of these future adults
to be innovative contributors to their community and society.
Maker Confidence: Grit
Grit was described in Chapter 2 as an element of growth mindset. Bevel1 shared that
“students were always motivated when completing maker projects. They were interested in
trying something new and putting forth their best effort. Very rarely did students demonstrate
evidence of giving up.” Grit (coded 97 times) was a subcomponent of maker confidence. It built
intrinsic motivation and rigorous engagement through the conviction that getting it wrong was a
pathway to getting it right. The only way to get it right was to look carefully at what happened
when it went wrong. Stager (2005) broke down motivation by grit up into factors:
● to succeed you need the freedom to goof on the way
● take charge of your learning
● learn by doing something you’re interested in
● have fun and enjoy the hard work
228

● manage your time (executive function)
● struggle and stick-to-it is worth it
● use technology to learn about other things
Grit may occur during an episode of positive disintegration to move a student into a
higher level of competence and skill which highlights the transition to maker confidence. Since
grit was associated with meaning and engagement (Von Culin et al., 2014) it elevated the
validation for educators to build into the learning time opportunities for students to overcome
situational failure. Brandy also observed that failure promoted flexibility, self-efficacy, and
partnership as the teams worked to rectify designs that did not work. As students persevered
through failure to test and retest, grit was revealed during the study primarily through the
observations and interviews. The “self-selected task” component of maker learning increased the
chances of failure because often students conceptualized extraordinary designs and products that
were infeasible to construct; yet it motivated them and cultivated the fantasy and extending
boundaries subcomponents of CreaT.
The educators modeled transparency in overcoming failures both in their own life
experiences and in their concurrent maker tasks. According to Eden, “It was because of mistakes
that we learned and grew. If you're not making mistakes, your brain isn't making any more
synaptic connections. We definitely talked about that with them and modeled and lived it.” For
example, an educator used a metacognitively guided approach when attempting to demonstrate
how to use a button to attach walls by threading cardboard together. However, the button was too
small and failed to effectively hold the walls together. She added, “So, by developing that very
safe environment it was okay to make mistakes, it was okay to get frustrated, it was okay to say,
“I need to walk away from this for five minutes because I can't see straight.”” The educator
229

demonstrated resilience by searching for alternate materials (toothpicks) to replace the buttons.
This transferred to the student’s own grit development.
In observations students were at times up against the pressure of limitations in time and
materials, the success signal effect of keeping up with competitors (peers) and keeping up with
the educators’ own production while following along and applying technique to the students’
own construction in a technique demonstration, as well as the pressure of high cognitive load.
This was seen during the following observation:
The student was cutting her notch down halfway into the cardboard. After finishing that
she chose another cardboard piece to cut a notch into in order to put the two pieces
together. The teacher gave the student work time [emotional space to apply and persist].
The teacher and the student were sawing at the same time together. The student took a
break from sawing to watch as the teacher demoed connecting two pieces of cardboard
with the notches. The student said, “This is so hard!” The student showed a facial
expression of slight exasperation and laid down the canary knife. She wiped her brow and
cracked her neck. Mental effort was demonstrated. She persevered stockpiling the
cardboard pieces and cutting panels. She had not yet caught up to the teacher to begin
threading and connecting the pieces together. Student: “This is so hard” (with a smile).
The teacher encouraged her, “alright just keep going.”
There was some evidence that female students exhibited the grit to intensely stick to a
singular task toward completion more so than male students. An example of this was referred to
when describing high flexibility in the boy GATE students. They tended to move on to multiple
tasks and handed the task off to a team member to complete. Since the results demonstrated that
there was a positive impact on motivation to foster CreaT and CT and reveal giftedness, this may
230

indicate that the grit component of maker confidence had gender-specific benefits. Other
examples of grit that eventually led to success included the giant air hockey game (Figure I12)
wherein students had to overcome repeated failure in the reverse vacuum device. The students
expressed positive emotions that motivated them to be resilient and improve upon the
effectiveness of the hockey puck. In Figure 10, the student overcame multiple failures and
transferred prior knowledge from Lego constructions in his attempt to create a 3D cactus out of
various shapes before determining that hexagons worked best. Students at Bevel failed over and
over to make the ball go through the basket. Other teams during observations, often through the
test/retest process, miscoded, failed to “pass task criteria” and “hypotheses” or stability tests, felt
“frustrated,” “stuck,” “super-confused,” “cheated” and that “time ran out” on a task that was “too
hard.” Grit appeared in mundane circumstances such as when a participant “saw a student
frustrated that the hole punch wasn't working for her. Squeezing harder didn't work. Squeezing
with two hands didn't work. She adjusted her grip to gain more leverage and was able to punch
through the paper.” Ellen commented on the intentional focus on building grit:
We use fail forward quite a bit in our vocabulary because makers’ spaces can be full of
failures, right. And so, kids when they feel like a failure, especially in a gifted campus
they're going to give up. So, it's, how do we fail forward and how do we take those
failures and learn and grow and not look at them as a failure. Look at them as an
opportunity and so how do we change that mindset into a growth mindset. I always stress
to the kids that the projects that didn't work are just as important and the effort of their
builders just as valuable as the projects that did work.
When grit was advanced, students were motivated to reach within themselves to develop
the creativity and reasoning skills needed to overcome failure and progress to an improved
231

design product or construction. Eden noted that there was value in “pushing you out of your
comfort zone.” For the GATE students “a lot of the academics came really easy.” Yet, in the
makers’ spaces,
They were working with things that they may never have worked with before. Especially
if they're not seeing these things in their home because a lot of our kids’ parents work at
Intel and they're not inherently makers. So, I think that that dissonance that happens when
you make them uncomfortable, and you get them to try new things is balanced and
improved when they do learn and accomplish something they've never done before. That
gives them that boost so there are socially emotional benefits that they know they can do
really hard things now.
Students progressed to even being able to “throw out” their failed attempts and “start
over.” Esther further detailed that, “We're much better at saying, “Yep, here's my thing, it didn't
work but here's what I learned that was hard.”” The fruit of grit was that students “completed
long-term projects from start to end.” Brandy emphasized that they “committed to finishing a
task and continued to revise, which not only prioritized the finished product, but put as much
emphasis on the process.” This evidence of grit correlated to the meaningfulness and engagement
(Von Culin et al., 2014) found in maker learning. The intentional development of grit gave
GATE students the opportunity to build their capacity to step out of their comfort zone of test-
taking and academic success and smart signaling. It gave them the opportunity to prove to
themselves and others that by authentically applying and increasing their CT skills, many
uncovered or increased their CreaT giftedness. That aspect of maker confidence through grit also
gave the unidentified students the opportunities to build their own CT skills, and more than even
232

the GATE students, reveal and signal to themselves and others their own CreaT skills and
learned giftedness.
Maker Confidence: Products (Useful and Innovative)
The fourth subset that emerged out of the maker confidence theme was the result of that
philosophy in making products that were useful and Innovative (coded 133 times). This aspect of
the maker confidence contributed to an objective assessment of the impact that the makers’
space, via maker confidence, had on the effect on the CreaT and CT skills of both unidentified
students and GATE students. This was evidenced in the data in products that synthesized artistic
qualities, sometimes termed an experience economy, to novel ideas that were also useful.
Usefulness was connected with the emphasis on designing a product to meet an end-user’s needs
(empathy), which requires creative fluency. According to Shively et al. (2018) a useful product is
one in which the emphasis for the product design and its construction is through the empathetic
(referenced 11 times) lens of meeting the customer’s (end-user) needs. Expert level usefulness,
accordingly, was an indication of creative giftedness and innovation which necessitates CreaT
and CT as an “open-ended cycle of learning and responsiveness to new challenges and possible
solutions” (Cunningham, 2011, p. 22).
In the marketplace, innovative products are evaluated according to their idea and concept
(Martinsuo & Poskela, 2011) and can be classified in five areas of evaluation, strategic fit,
technical feasibility, customer acceptance, market opportunity, and financial performance
(Carbonell-Foulquié et al., 2004). Strategic fit was primarily applied to approving a new product
concept. Technical feasibility focused on the approval of a new product concept and its
prototype. The usage of customer acceptance includes the end-user’s needs and satisfaction with
a product. Market opportunity has to do with the number of end-users ready to use the product,
233

its potential for growth, and eventually measured growth which was employed to approve the
new product concept and then maintain it once it hit the market. Financial performance was a
dimension that was measured at the end of product development. In the marketplace, companies
put the most weight on product cost, quality, market acceptance, customer satisfaction, and
eventually sales volume when moving an innovative product forward. Figure 21 portrays the
real-world decision-making process that goes into the approval of innovative products. While the
constructions and products that came about in the makers’ spaces may not have gone all the way
through a thorough marketing approval process, there were built-in components of empathy,
competition and customer need that defined maker confidence, and in some cases, such as
cardboard challenges, those products were tested out in the peer marketplace. This gave students
the opportunity to experience the same process and market testing that adults in the real-world
experience.

234

Figure 21
Product Development

Note. From “Criteria employed for go/no-go decisions when developing successful highly
innovative products,” by P. Carbonell-Foulquié, J. L. Munuera-Alemán, and A. I. Rodrı
́ guez-
Escudero, 2004, Industrial Marketing Management, 33(4), p. 310
(https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(03)00080-4). Copyright 2003 Elsevier, Inc.

Useful products were kick-started by the intentional educator moves. Prototypes and
examples of constructions and products were shared by the educators as samples of possible
outcomes and products were stored around the makers’ space rooms as a way for students to
study and view products that were already made. Examples included kaleidoscopes, dollhouses,
lamps, pachinko, and similar marble drop games, puppets made out of socks or paper, gloves,
masks, hats, Minecraft style communities, and kazoos. Educators modeled the empathic thinking
that laid the foundation for customer acceptance for the students’ making. Students performed
market research such as surveys on their peers to design wallets, backpacks, and self-cleaning
235

eyeglasses. Shark tank activities at Edger simulated technical feasibility and market opportunity.
Ellen explained how this gave students the opportunity to work through the product approval
process giving students the opportunity to “design prototypes, test, and redesign. They presented
their product multiple times for feedback that allowed them to redesign and then communicate
their intentions. As they received feedback, they adjusted and then communicated to a new group
of peers and adults.” That was reiterated by Frieda, Fanny and Bevel1 and included feedback that
resulted in complete overhauls of a design, minor tweaking, and, in some cases, another group
took over the design construction to reconceptualize the product.
In some sense, the educators and peers took part in the strategic fit. They were the first
line of ‘approval’ for the teams in the product development phase. The product design’s
usefulness was aligned to strategic fit as determined by the task assignment or in some cases a
community need. For example, the irrigation system designed by students at Anvil served a
community need while the diseño met the strategic fit set by the teachers’ criteria to demonstrate
evidence of content knowledge, as well as artistic ability and evidence of creative voice. In that
activity, the students’ products were met with multiple rounds of idea and concept evaluation
that included redesign recommendations and in some cases rejection with a need to reset the
design. This was where the technical feasibility phase revealed the students’ application of CreaT
and CT through their designs and use of techniques to construct their ideas.
In the marketing world, quantitative and qualitative criteria are used to distill the
complexity of design ideas to foster new products and concepts that promote the strategic
opportunity that a product concept may offer for end-users (Martinsuo & Poskela, 2011). It’s the
system in which the complexity of intricate details of technique, choice in materials and tools
combines to create stability in the students’ products. These products included a solar panel
236

system, an ocean recycler, wearable body rhythm data collection clothing, 3D math challenge
game, basketball lever shooter and hoop contraption, timepieces, coded games and robot
applications, and cardboard houses with intricate details in furniture, fixtures, clothing, and
appliances made of recycled household items such as clothes hangers, toilet paper rolls,
cardboard, aluminum foil, paper clips, vials, sand, scrap wood, and other simple objects
transformed into a piece of marketable, innovative constructions. These data revealed the
underlying importance that the maker confidence cultivated the frequently termed “college- and
career-ready” aspect of education that is often proclaimed in schools. I adapt the mantra to be
college, career and entrepreneurial-ready.
The maker confidence (Figure 22) was reciprocal in that it facilitated the motivation for
students to exert the mental effort that revealed and developed CreaT and CT in students so that
giftedness could be signaled, identified, and cultivated, in which the data showed increased
confidence. It incorporated the collective culture and climate of an educational organization that
signals to its stakeholders that it has a vision and mission to embolden students to be the “risk-
takers” that Torrance (1962a) highlights as the gateway to high-level creativity. When a school
undertook to adopt this philosophy as a core value, it was committing to taking gifted education
seriously. Documents from the school, such as problem-solving project task timelines,
demonstrated an organizational commitment to the maker mindset. It indicated that maker
learning was not just an isolated project or even PBL, but a message that the maker mindset was
ingrained in the school philosophy. In the bigger picture, making bridges the equity gap in
schools that may not emphasize life skills and whole child learning due to their perceived content
intervention needs. Maker learning may be an alternative way to address learning gaps by
237

drawing out the internal drivers of motivation, such as interest, expectancy value, partnership,
that set the stage for innovation through maker learning.

Figure 22
Maker Confidence

238

Maker Confidence: Summary
The evidence from interviews of all participants, supported by survey data, observation
data, and document analysis demonstrated that the elements of maker confidence are a signal of
gifts and talents that carry over into other aspects of life and academics. It is an aspect of
giftedness that may not have been emphasized before in the definition of giftedness. It suggests
the idea of an added designation of giftedness which both contributes to academic achievement
and to life skills and employability. It means that through the makers’ space experience students
become capable of innovative problem-solving indicative of successful disciplinarians and
entrepreneurs. Its long-term benefits occur by our ability to persevere through the process.
According to Piper, humans were made to make, and in doing that we must persevere by making
“peace with imperfection. Just keep chopping. Keep chopping at whatever worthy task you
have” (Reinke, 2020, section 4).
The social interaction and communication (partnerships) between students, their peers,
and educators, including educator moves to promote skills and efficacy, motivated students to
sharpen each other’s thinking because of the aspects of safe competition and encouragement
exert the effort to improve and persevere (grit, growth mindset) resulting in increased levels of
maker confidence. The development of maker confidence was the venue by which multiple
levels of giftedness from among the current categories (intellectual, high-achieving, specific
academic, creative, leadership, arts) were revealed and developed.
Summary
The research revealed that students demonstrated high levels of CreaT, CT and
motivation through maker learning. Maker learning was not limited to the four walls of a single
room. The same results were replicated in makers’ spaces, complimentary labs, virtual spaces,
239

and in mobile carts and classroom integrated settings. The situated learning environment
motivated students to reveal multiple categories of giftedness while opening up opportunities for
all students to express their CreaT and CT skills situated within the other two Cs of 21st century
learning, communication, and collaboration (Figure 7). It set the stage for laboratory experiences
that are tantamount to the knowledge application encounters of scholars and disciplinarians. In
Chapter Five, I will discuss how these findings set the stage for a new category of giftedness and
the impact that this research needs to have on policy implications.
Conclusion
The motivation themes in conjunction with the maker mindset, constructionist pedagogy,
occurring in the makers’ space labs, had an impact on the high levels of CreaT and CT were
observed by me and reported by the respondents and participants. Working together these
constructs formed the phenomenon of the maker mindset as evidenced by the students’
motivation to overcome failure and cognitive load in order to attain individual and group goals.
Maker confidence was the result of being scrutinized through the iterative process, losing
confidence because it was not perfect the first time, and then increasing it due to the successes
following critique and modifications. The synthesis of motivation, CreaT, and CT over time
developed a maker confidence that springboards students to exert the mental effort required to
cultivate and demonstrate CreaT and CT. As seen in Figure 23, motivation was observed at least
most of the time by all three roles of educators and CreaT and CT also fell into that scoring
range. When I began the study, I expected that CT would score higher than CreaT, but the
educators scored CreaT higher. In conjunction with its impact on CreaT and CT, motivation
seemed to impact CreaT more than CT. The factors that contributed to the evidence of CreaT and
240

CT included connections between the educators' moves, variety and choice, discovery,
communication, and collaboration.
Along with motivation, effective grouping (Figure 24) influenced how teams
communicated and collaborated to cultivate CreaT and CT. Much like the way in our own
bodies, and “the eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’” (Reinke, 2020, para. 2)
effective teams depend on, and benefit from each other in the making process. Based on these
factors behind the results for CreaT and CT it follows that the high motivation factor would
connect to and inspire the subcomponents of CreaT. In other words, to come up with original
ideas, to elaborate on them, and to be flexible to preserve through circumstances one has to be
motivated to overcome external and internal obstacles that cause us to shut down an idea before
it has attained highly creative elements.

241

Figure 23
Overall Constructs

Note. 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = most of the time, 5 = always

Figure 24
Effective Grouping of Teams in a Makers’ Space

242

Chapter Five: Findings
The purpose of this study was to determine whether a makers’ space intervention had an
impact on areas of learning that include the skills necessary to be identified as gifted in an
elementary context. The results demonstrated that students’ participation in a school site-based
makers’ space led to high levels of CreaT, CT, motivation and the skills and content learning
transference that accompanies these constructs. Based on the findings, the discussion is an
attempt to win schools and districts over to the value of makers’ spaces on their sites. Within that
process and context, there was an effort to determine what implications this had for two
subgroups of students in the context of gifted education. These were the unidentified students
and identified GATE students.
I have now initialized makers’ spaces at four schools and am currently working on the
fifth school. The experience has been rewarding and the excitement for learning has been
verbalized in extraordinary ways. Parents have shared that their children jump out of bed on the
makers’ space days. They cannot wait to get back in the lab. Others described how their
kindergartners taught them how to fix appliances at their home and that they believe that their
CreaT and CT have improved. A parent at Anvil shared that the makers’ space made the
curriculum “come to life.” For any leader who desires to bring this experience to their own
school, there are a few summary items to take note of. In Appendix P there is an account of my
journey from learning about makers’ spaces to making the connection between their learning
value and the often-neglected needs of GATE students who may or may not have been identified
in their school site. My own approach to change management mirrors many of the experiences of
the administrators who were interviewed for this study. What emerged from that were aspects of
organizational change models, project management models, leadership qualities, and the most
243

crucial factors that led to the success or lack of success of the makers’ spaces among the schools
in this study. I suggest that leaders who want to pursue an elementary makers’ space to follow a
similar process in their school or district.
Maker confidence emerged as a significant factor in learning and giftedness. Maker
confidence is defined as the result of the impact and growth of motivation, CreaT, and CT which
came about because of the philosophy of the educators in the makers’ spaces, the communication
and collaboration, and the components of variety and choice in products, materials, tools, and
techniques which the makers encountered. The students who exhibited maker confidence
emerged through growth in their ability to lead and be self-directed to develop ideas and move
the process forward. They were motivated to pursue creative ideas and they demonstrated
metacognitive traits that increase their ability to problem-solve and persevere through failure to
solve tasks. This process by which the makers work through their designs by levels is
representative of a problem space theorized by Herbert Simon (Bredo, 1997). It revealed itself
when the makers contributed to their design scenarios by multiple representations that
contributed to the “space” (pp. 26–27) in which they were progressing through their
design/construction problems. Simon allegorized it like one running through a maze trying
various turns in order to reach one’s goal, which was very similar to the process experienced by
the individuals and teams in the makers’ spaces. Figure 7 (Chapter 4) displays the seven
components of design thinking that emerged from the data. These factors combined to establish
the process by which CreaT and CT were revealed and acquired in the makers’ spaces. When
student-makers successfully navigated the design process, they demonstrated they were able to
persevere, to reflect and revise, to work with a team, and to work within a problem space with a
goal of upward/improvement that benefits other members of society. In an uncertain marketing
244

and professional environment, this is a potential signal to entrepreneurs and employers that an
individual will have a ‘pay off’ to one’s investment, which may either be literal funding, or it
may be hiring that individual (Spence, 1973). In a real sense educational makers’ spaces and the
makers that excel and emerge from them signal giftedness by virtue of their frequent
representation at highly reputed independent schools, and autonomous public schools which
typically reside in high socioeconomic areas. Makers’ spaces may help resolve the educational
system’s lofty ideal that we are increasing students’ ability (human capital) with the realization
that education may not be much more than the venue within which high-ability individuals
advertise that they are uniquely qualified for a job or to be invested in (Huntington-Klein, 2021).
To be specific, that individual is metaphorically holding up a marquee that says, “I am gifted.”
Goals of the Study
The goal of this study was to determine if a makers’ space had an impact on CT and
CreaT skills of elementary students aged 8–11. To frame those skills within learning theory,
there was an examination of the motivational aspects of the environment on the learner so as to
determine if authentic learning took place. Those data were examined to determine if the impact
was different for identified gifted students as well as unidentified students. The process of
origination, development, and preservation of an elementary makers’ space was investigated in
order to support the endeavors of policymakers, districts, and individuals who believe in the
importance of this learning as an equity issue. The belief is that this aspect of the findings will
provide examples for others to pursue this learning environment and that schools that are under-
resourced can still have valuable hands-on experiences that promote CreaT, CT and provoke
motivation, through authentic, memorable experiences for students that give them the
opportunity to see their talents and gifts.
245

Data were collected through surveys, interviews, classroom and meeting observations,
and documents, including existing school data review. The interviews, surveys, and the
observation rubric aligned with the conceptual components of CreaT, CT, and motivation,
defined by the common assessments and the literature. The study, by necessity, evolved from a
quantitatively focused analysis of pre-and post-assessment evaluation of learning focused on
thinking skills to a more qualitative approach in which educators’ experiences and observations
of learning took center stage. In the midst of data collection, the educational community shut
down in-person learning due to a worldwide pandemic, COVID-19. This altered the path of
third-party data collection and observation opportunities so that survey data and educator
experiences increased in weight. Hence, the experiences and the practice of the educators-as-
expert notion more heavily influenced the findings. The findings point to a new model for gifted
identification as well as a proposed category of giftedness: entrepreneurially gifted. I will also
summarize the findings of an organizational change model that effectively assists other school
sites to be able to start and sustain an elementary makers’ space.
Entrepreneurially Gifted
Based on the data from my study, giftedness can be evaluated and recognized by well-
trained educators. A new category of giftedness emerged that recognizes multiple levels of the
already recognized categories in addition to the characteristics that emerged from the makers in
this study. It is an uber category of giftedness termed entrepreneurially gifted. The term has very
scant representation in the literature and primarily from researchers outside of the United States.
Since Shavinina (2008), who identified Richard Branson as prototypically entrepreneurially
gifted, introduced the term prior to the maker movement there have been only a few correlations
between it and maker learning’s impact on creative problem-solving, and design thinking
246

connecting it to entrepreneurial giftedness (Lee et al., 2019). Table E13 identifies those traits
between entrepreneurially gifted traits and the findings of this study which follow my concept of
entrepreneurial gifted through a maker lens (Figure 25).

Figure 25
Entrepreneurially Gifted

Giftedness is a vector of multiple attributes and criteria, and this category too requires a
matrix of the constructs that were examined in this study such as CreaT and CT, as well as
communication, collaboration, and a combination of the other defined areas of giftedness which
were evidenced by artifacts and products. That entrepreneurial mindset does not require privilege
247

and can contribute to all economies. This definition of entrepreneurship encapsulates the analytic
ability to negotiate, and the innovative ability to use evidence to make informed design and even
everyday survival decisions in which makers shine. Entrepreneurship as a category of gifted
includes the other already codified categories of GATE identification contextualized through
maker learning in the following ways alongside the GATE category:
● leadership: capable of demonstrating the ability to carry a team through the demands of a
project or task to achieve a vision (Filion, 2015; Sanséau & Defélix, 2020)
● intellectual: confident to take a calculated risk introducing an idea in the form of a
construction or product into a market setting that poses the possibility of profit or loss
(Thornton, 2020)
● arts: artistic or aesthetic ability that influences the culture and enrich a community
(Chemi, 2015)
● high ability: gritty and resilient to persevere through failure and willing to spiral through
the iterative cycle over and over (Vizcaíno et al., 2021)
● creative: innovative within the context of adding value to an end-user experience and
need (Filion, 2021)
● emotional: passionate, enthusiastic, and motivated individuals or teams who are
opportunity-seeking in various domains (Baraldi et al., 2020; Newman et al., 2021)
● adept at applying building techniques to the design process (Rinehart, 2019)
These descriptors emerged from the data in my research. Additionally, the descriptors from the
study intersect with many of the commonly recognized levels of Bloom’s taxonomy:
● creating
● evaluating
248

● analyzing
● applying
● understanding
● remembering
Giftedness is a vector of multiple indicators. Those traits which emerged from this study
that identify a person as entrepreneurially gifted (Figure 25) include maker confidence,
marketing mindset with an end-user in mind, systems thinking, and a sufficient level of cognitive
processing. That giftedness is demonstrated by evidence through products and constructions
which may be domain-specific or domain-general that meet form and function criteria that
benefit an end-user or a group of focus.
Organizational Factors
Since the influence of makers’ spaces enhances learning and is significant to giftedness
via its upward constructive impact on motivation, CreaT, and CT, it is important to note the
emergent organizational factors that initiated and sustained elementary makers’ spaces. Since the
makers’ spaces had an impact on thinking skills and learning, it suggests that educators’ skills at
organizational management at a school site are needed to provide insight into what may be
duplicatable in his/her own maker program. In other words, was there something about makers’
spaces that made the learning experience special and unique in a way that cannot be grasped in
other contexts and settings? The perspective of the administrators who either initiated makers’
spaces or sustained ones they inherited, Andrew, Brenda, Becky, Connie, and Esther, contributed
to the organizational factors findings. The findings synthesized into what emerged as the top
three inhibitors and the top three success moves and the tipping point for the makers’ space
success, ala Gladwell (2019). The data revealed that makers’ spaces prompted innovation and
249

entrepreneurship. For the visionary educator to prioritize these ideas and concepts in elementary
education, a strong plan must be in place to initiate and sustain it. Change must typically take
place in beliefs, vision, mission, resource allocation, pedagogy, and instructional practice. The
organizational factors that were examined were organizational management based, in part, on
change management, leader qualities, project management, and psychology of change as well as
codes that emerged in that process. The emergent codes included maker amazement, tipping
point, success indicators, top inhibitors, equity, and InVivo codes. These results are significant
because if one has agreed with the value of maker education, along with its impact on CT,
CreaT, and motivation, then there needs to be a map for making it a successful venture.
Organizational Factors: Overall
The participants in this study all emerged with a strong belief in the value of maker
education on learning, CT, CreaT, and motivation. Since the driver for this study was to
determine if elementary maker education impacted CT, CreaT, and motivation, it is notable, that
in Figure 23 (Chapter 4), administrators scored these elements of learning higher than the other
educators claiming that all three, and especially motivation, were evident in the students in the
makers’ spaces between most of the time and always. Teachers had more time with their students
to make these observations, but they may have also brought in bias via intermingling classroom
observations of their own students. The lab facilitators had the opportunity to observe the largest
sample of students, increasing their credibility, while a typical administrator typically visited the
makers’ space long enough to observe the more explicit of the two thinking skills, CreaT. In
general, the lab facilitators had the most extensive observation experience, but they may not have
the content and pedagogical expertise to make the most accurate assessments of their thinking
250

skills. The following section presents a discussion of the organizational findings and offers a
roadmap for leaders who desire to bring maker education to their school site.
Organizational Factors: Three Top Inhibitors
The participants shared their top three inhibitors to moving forward on maker education.
Leaders should be aware of these inhibitors for their own organizational management purposes.
Andrew warned to avoid ending up with “those beautiful maker labs that nobody uses.”
Participants, such as Esther, cautioned against losing “our ‘Why’ and purpose,” which can be
watered down over time and impacted by staff turnover. Another was taking one’s eyes off of
emotional, academic, and physical safety because, as Esther shared, “not everything is
developmentally appropriate” “because they don't have the manual dexterity for” some tools.
Another inhibitor is a lack of awareness about one’s “audience.” She continued that lack of
reflection on “having kids really think about their why and what they've done with it” is an
inhibitor. This is because without reflection, being able to recognize what went well and what
can improve a project, individuals’ growth mindsets are negatively impacted due to their ability
to overcome setbacks and the belief that their skills can improve over time. In other words, a
growth mindset is part of maker mindset which contributes to maker confidence. Lack of time
was an inhibitor because it “tended to be the number one point from teachers that there isn't
enough time.” Local political agendas were inhibitors “especially in the public-school world.
This stress on literacy and math measurement as the be-all and end-all and anything not directly
related has to take a backseat.
Inhibitors need to be recognized so that they can be overcome through success moves. I
will discuss those success moves next.

251

Organizational Factors: Three Top Success Moves
A crucial component to the success of each of the schools in the study was that there was
a strong shared vision among the stakeholders, and frequently a conceptual driver that acted as a
focal point. Participants shared the actions that made the most impact on the success of a makers’
space at an elementary school. Leaders must figure out “why you're pursuing maker education”
according to Esther. Brenda observed that building success meant being someone who lived out
the philosophy and “got out there and met other people that were doing it” to learn and advertise
maker education in order to get the support of your boards and district cabinets. It was advertised
to the community with social media, school newsletters that where Andrew described “events
happening in the maker spaces” as well as other digital platforms “see all the range of skills and
mindsets and habits of mind that are being built by being and using this space so that it was not
just theoretical or esoteric.” Annual events and celebrations such as “Maker Faire,” “Cardboard
Challenge,” “Caine’s Arcade,” and “Passion Projects” contributed to maker schools' ongoing
success. According to Esther, successful change occurred when the staff believed that “Oh, I can
take them to the makerspace and have them do this with the math or have them do this with the
science or this with the social studies.”
Another successful move noted by participants, as Esther put it, included “having a
direction” that the school was pursuing in terms of resources, “structure and purposeful play” so
that “you are not just buying things willy nilly.” Brenda and Andrew added that the maker leader
“kept it about the people” and “invested in training the people first before you buy the stuff” so
that the pursuit of the program brings one’s team along with the leader. Ensuring that educators
have professional learning to implement the curriculum and tasks effectively resulted in high-
level CreaT and CT (Duesbery & Justice, 2015).
252

Finally, adequately trained personnel were critical. Not only was it crucial that teachers
receive professional learning about maker education, but planning time buttressed the efforts.
While not absolutely necessary, the schools that funded a lab facilitator also experienced higher
efficiency and participation frequency in their labs. When the lab facilitator also collaborated
with the teachers to design tasks and integrate content areas into the tasks and projects, there was
greater satisfaction among the teachers and administrators.
Organizational Factors: Tipping Point
Malcolm Gladwell (2019) described the idea of how and when human behavior changes
with viral acceptance, buy-in, and excitement to an idea in his book Tipping Point. The tipping
point is that point in time, much like a global pandemic, when socially constructed epidemics
and viral trends accelerate to reach their critical mass. Unique personality types influence who
disseminates ideas and trends to move the idea forward through a phenomenon of atypical or
straightforward marketing (Gladwell, 2019). The participants described immersive events that
made the maker idea real at their schools.
Brenda described it as a merge of a few events once “people were inspired by the idea
that we were not just doing it because we had to, but really doing something that could be very
unique and powerful for kids.” A merger of support from directors of maintenance and
operations, budgeting, and instruction brought the equipment, funding, and a dedicated support
staff member to the school to make it “easier than I expected.” Multiple participants noted a
tipping point for them was to secure a “really good, full-time” support expert who trained staff
and parents, built curriculum, and collaborated with the teachers to synthesize the content with
“making stuff with your bare hands,” according to Brenda. Other factors contributing to the
tipping point were grants, donations, and partnerships with nonprofits and corporations that
253

sponsored the maker schools. These partnerships, which included American Legions, Teach
Rock, and parent teacher organizations, resulted in funding, field trips and special events, broad
recognition, and instant validation for maker programs.
Implications for Policy and Practice
This section contains conceptual models for implementing maker education as a valid
intervention for learning and developing CreaT and CT. I suggest that it be identified as a valid
intervention for gifted students and that it serves as an avenue to identify giftedness. In fact, the
research revealed dual giftedness and even multiple levels of giftedness. It cannot be understated
the way that the research divulged how maker learning benefited gifted learners from the GATE
group and the unidentified group. During the observations and the interviews this theme emerged
as students who did not see themselves as leaders took on support roles when they recognized
that they had the ability to contribute to their peers’ struggles, ideations, and design thinking
process. The collaborative grouping environment benefited mutual feedback between makers, the
educator-coach to emerge from introverted tendencies to assert their innovative ideas and
establish individual agency. This was especially evident in multi-grade level classrooms wherein
makers at different grade levels took on mentor and buddy roles with both younger and older
makers. Factors for these scores may include the number of participants, individual perceptions
and interpretations of motivation, and educator expertise, experience, or school expectations. For
example, since the GATE schools and the independent schools claim to teach a higher-level
curriculum, the educators’ perceptions of ability may be skewed by the comparative student
response between their time in the classrooms and in the makers’ space. Maker learning helps
resolve the conundrum between achieving academic standards proficiency with the recognized
need to equip our learners to be ready for an unknown world of innovation and digital prowess.
254

The research revealed that maker learning prepared student-makers to be 21st century
entrepreneurs that accomplish the common K–12 goal to be ready for careers that have not yet
been created using technology that has not yet been created as successful problem-solvers. The
maker setting is a valid setting for qualified educators to be able to identify students as gifted and
talented in the current definition of gifted while also recommending a category of gifted
identification, entrepreneurially gifted. This study was designed to recognize whether makers’
spaces had an impact on these crucial skills and then if they did have an impact, to propose
makers’ spaces as a model of learning that if implemented in elementary schools will manifest
learners who develop their gifts for the benefit of society.
Therefore, it is essential for policymakers to recognize that maker learning opens doors
for underserved students to build important 21st century skills as a signal of their abilities and
giftedness. The evidence that emerged from this study highlights the importance of maker
education for all students. It is a response to what education claims to accomplish in instructional
goals, social-emotional learning goals, content mastery, and college-, career-, vocational-,
entrepreneurial-ready goals. When innovation and ideas such as maker learning are integrated
into education, foundational goals such as literacy are also accomplished (Lange, 2019). As a
result of these findings, I recommend that policymakers incorporate maker learning in the
context of innovation education and that entrepreneurially gifted be codified legally as a GATE
identification category.
K–12 Policy
Perhaps it takes courage to move to transform education to align with the best interests of
our students because we are fighting against a “culture that craves mediocrity” (MacArthur,
2020). In K–12 education schools are asked to promote college and career preparation which has
255

become the mission for most K–12 institutions throughout the United States. The findings
suggest that that includes the 21st century skills that both lay an educational foundation and
develop an indicator or signal that the student is vocationally or entrepreneurially ready to
contribute to a local or national community. The term entrepreneurial in this context refers to
those individuals who contribute to the local or national economy through startups that include
nonprofits, innovative inventors, and those with desirable, employable skills. It consists of those
who have the vision and systems thinking to improve communities. It converges the typical
economic associations of entrepreneurs with those who make quality of life impacts to
communities both locally and globally. It displays itself in the youth who learn how to negotiate
asynchronously with peers and those with power and recognize how power works positively to
benefit human beings. This is the 21st century way of making sure students are career-ready.
Gifted programs, and by necessity identification of GATE students who participate in
those programs, took root in nationally recognized programs such as Cleveland’s Major Work
program, which began in 1922. The program professed to harness gifted students to participate in
their gifted program as a means to improve cultural and intellectual life for society by identifying
Cleveland’s brightest children and then educating them to become leaders for their communities
(Gold, 1984). As a reminder, when referring to the impact on gifted students, this includes both
the GATE students as well as students who revealed giftedness from the unidentified group.
Makers’ spaces extend opportunities through that making process that systematically tailors to
students’ needs and encourages them to reflect, to achieve goals, and to master techniques,
content, and the design thinking process, which may countermand patterns of underachievement
(Fong & Krause, 2014; Zeidner & Stoeger, 2019). The data revealed that motivation was the
highest of the three constructs from the survey and that administrators reported observing higher
256

levels of motivation than lab facilitators and teachers. This may be due to factors such as bias
toward their desire to showcase their program, students’ desire to impress administrators,
expertise in evaluating motivation based on their role and experience, or quantity and quality of
observational time by roles. These results demonstrated how the maker experience had a circular
impact on motivation in that motivation ‘greased the wheels’ for high-level CreaT and CT,
which in turn resulted in higher levels of subcomponents of motivation such as self-efficacy and
self-regulation that manifest in entrepreneurial achievement potential. Makers’ spaces may serve
the purpose to reveal CreaT by establishing “Creative Apprenticeships” that link education to
real-world job and entrepreneurial opportunities (Donohoe, 2011, p. 17). This is necessary
because, as seen during the COVID-19 effects of the pandemic, we are called on more and more
to regulate our learning, which is a common attribute in high-achieving gifted individuals
(Zeidner & Stoeger, 2019) and necessary for job performance to achieve a thriving existence.
The Case for a Makers’ Space in Every School
While recognizing these factors are important to the findings, the value of makers’ spaces
may be in the phenomena of the students’ hands-on experiences atypical of many schools. Many
of these experiences would have only come about otherwise by way of parents who pursue them
outside of the school setting, and as Allen shared, typically only occurs in the higher-level SES
families who recognize and pursue the value of making for their child. The data that represented
maker learning during remote sessions aligned with the data during classroom making. This is
important because it demonstrates that maker education transcends the limitations of a lab on a
school site. It celebrates the talents, the CreaT, and CT of the educators who remained open to
the constructionist philosophy during an uncomfortable and fluid situation. The makers’ spaces
crystallized students’ critical perception to incorporate a reality of process (Milner, 2003) of
257

learning through debate and discomfort. Since the teacher guided this, there was a flux between
teacher-centered and student-centered ideals.
The experience is what enriches the learning and simulates situational opportunities that
may not otherwise occur until adulthood experiences. It is similar to an account by a colleague
who has been employed in the aerospace industry for over 30 years. He shared that when he
started in his twenties the best engineers came from backgrounds such as farms that required
them to problem-solve using their hands to take apart and build machinery or use tools. He
mentioned that, these days, incoming engineers struggle to build airplanes and rockets because
they have not had similar hands-on experiences. This relates to the value of making as a
memorable activity that may build self-efficacy and talent recognition. It manifests through the
products as evidence of creative and cognitive ability culmination. Pine & Gilmore (1998) refer
to such experiences as “real an offering as any service, good, or commodity,” (p. 98) or an
experience economy. The experience is what differentiates an iPhone from a flip phone and
Disneyland from the stop-off carnival. They all accomplish similar functions, but the value and
cost are derived from the emotional and mental pull to want to experience the entire package.
Makers’ spaces may accomplish similar value in our learners’ experiences that include all four of
Pine and Gilmore’s elements of a valuable and memorable experience. The makers’ space was
axiomatically educational, provided an escape from the traditional classroom, and resulted in
aesthetic and entertaining products. Those experiences may also plant a seed for increased CreaT
and CT because we come to conclusions more quickly when we have prior knowledge to assist
us with making diagnoses.
For example, a shop teacher acquaintance commented on the CT skills needed in auto
shop. He rhetorically asked, “What do you do when you’re turning the key and nothing happens?
258

Go back to possibilities: Is there gas? Is the battery hooked up? Is the alternator working?” Other
fields and disciplines, such as doctors, go through the same logic and critical thinking process to
make diagnoses. Ask yourself what you remember from your own life in school. I remember
field trips, certain adults, and children who I liked and admired, and I remember things I made. I
remember making historical estate designs when learning about Williamsburg, designing
dioramas, and making a toolbox in metal shop. In terms of learning, the experiences are what
students remember. Our students need that value inserted into their educational experience
because it is not only memorable, but it increases their appeal to an employer or to a venturist
looking for a competent, trustworthy, and skilled entrepreneur who has domain-relevant
problem-solving skills.
Consider how these students increased their marketability by designing innovative
products such as clothing that collects body rhythm data, instrument sets, underwater
communities, ocean cleansing machines, game experiences, and innovative skyscrapers.
Somewhat reciprocally to those imaginative experiences was a phenomenon in which students
also regulated idea elaboration in order to economize the design process to meet class deadlines.
The makers in this study engaged in countless markets and disciplines such as civil engineering,
fashion, industrial design, gaming, programming, architecture, ecology, biological engineering,
city planning just to name a few. The pathway to laying the foundation for this evidence is a 21st
century venture in itself. The educator has to provide the space and setting, whether it be a
person, a group, an institution, a community, a district, a network, a family, and any other like-
minded entity that puts learning first. To restate the purpose of learning, it must go into long-
term memory so that the knowledge is available to the learner’s future advantage. Because this
study was couched within a cross-section of thinking skills, CreaT and CT facilitated through
259

motivation, and the experiential learning of makers’ spaces, it was important to look at how these
concepts manifested in the overall response of the students through the eyes of educators. The
educators’ possessed the expertise to evaluate these skills and concepts in the students who
participated in the intervention. That level of scholarly competence occurred when “Teachers ...
go through a transformative process, breaking the ideological chains of their own formal
education, of past training, and the inertia of habit of past teaching.” (Peterson, 2003, p. 367).
The suggestion is that makers’ spaces become a venue for gifted identification which may have a
reciprocal effect on self-efficacy in those students who are recognized as gifted through the
maker experience.
Makers’ spaces do not require large budgets or even an actual room. The top five
mentioned materials terms were cardboard (179), plastic (179), recycled pieces (136), paper
(120), and glue (82), which further emphasized the simplicity of the function and maintenance of
maker learning. One may readily find these items in the home. Based on the findings, schools do
not need large budgets and multiple personnel to achieve the learning and CreaT that so many
districts and schools attempt to achieve through a flourish of spending and training. Students
simply need access to the experience that a maker space offers students to be treated equitably
and with trust as a learner. These makers’ spaces provided a laboratory to incubate in ways rarely
offered until high school and more often not until college. The experience generates communities
of practitioners that master knowledge and skills that motivate full participation in the
sociocultural practices of a community. (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 29).
Policy Informed by Future-Focused Evidence
Not only did educators in the study focus on meeting the needs of gifted students, but, as
Becky noted, it was also an area of focus for “motivated and vocal” parents given training and
260

the opportunity to provide input into school models and curriculum. Such stakeholders should be
considered in policy formation. One cannot deny that giftedness is a signal to peers, schools of
choice, college admissions, and employers that identified people provide enrichment
opportunities to succeed and contribute to an organization. It begs the need to have equitable
identification processes and, in turn, compelling learning opportunities to meet the needs of
GATE students. Perhaps if there were other effective processes for identifying students in gifted
categories, it may serve more students’ gifted needs. Haynes (2020) found that a situational,
formative means for assessing creativity was valid and should be implemented for students in the
5–14 years age range and that it should both cultivate creativity and CT while providing a way to
recognize it as giftedness in students.
A policy change that impacts the approach to education that treats students as
practitioners who learn content-applied life skills is necessary to creating a problem-solving
talent base that is necessary for the current innovative settings for employment, the technology
industry, and entrepreneurial opportunities. In this era, all educators require a hybrid learning
strategy. As demonstrated in the findings from the virtual observations, maker chats and maker
learning are effective ways to learn during hybrid learning, with results similar to the experiences
in the physical makers’ spaces. As Chisel1 put it regarding maker learning, “Students showcased
their knowledge in a way that was authentic to them and will remember way beyond” any
classroom assessment. Based on the findings, the recommendation is that, amid many valid
approaches to gifted education, makers’ spaces accomplish many of the original and ongoing
goals which began with the Marland report. Specifically, children are those students who are
identified as gifted and talented by professionally qualified persons, our well-trained educators,
who possess phenomenal abilities and are capable of performing at high levels. Given this
261

identification, which can occur during the makers’ space intervention, differentiated educational
programs are required for individuals to realize their contribution to self and society (Marland,
1971). Becky shared her own belief in the power of maker learning as a differentiated
opportunity, “I'm also working to educate our teachers and our principals that you do have
GATE students there and they deserve to have differentiated instruction.” Esther shared, in
response to its application to underserved students, “I think it would be amazing and that we'd
have huge results from it, and we think it works for all kids. We just happen to have gifted kids
on our campus.” These findings relate to the literature that identifies gifted students as an at-risk
category (Seeley, 2004; Silverman & Gilman, 2020), which intensifies with those students who
are in underserved subgroups (Wai et al., 2010) that typically do not receive their needed
intervention services (Swiatek & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2003). Removing barriers to underserved
individuals with gifts and talent can grow the United States nearly 50% aggregate growth in
market GDP per person (Hsieh et al., 2019). Through this approach the United States can stem
the trend, due to decreasing domestic talent, of bringing in innovation talent from outside the
United States (Conard, 2017). By not implementing opportunities to reveal giftedness in
students, our public schools have effectively left these students “neglected” and to “fend for
themselves” (Jolly & Robins, 2016, p. 13). If educational entities take seriously the original
intention of Title I funding, to counteract poverty, some of those funds would go toward more
inclusive gifted programs that include and highlight makers’ spaces.
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings from this study reflect triangulation and general agreement across the four
data areas. However, a larger sample of schools may add to the generalizability of the findings of
positive growth that makers’ spaces have on the constructs of CreaT, CT, and motivation, as well
262

as a positive impact on unidentified and identified gifted students. The findings from the four
data have allowed me to conceptualize the positive consequence of learning that occurred for
upper elementary students at various settings who had similar experiences and results subsequent
to a situated makers’ space experience. What we are doing is creating a learner-centered
environment, not a content-centered environment, not a skill-centered environment, and not a
standard-centered environment. We want them to have an environment where students are given
a catalyst to learn. This means that if they are learning and if there is guidance going on to build
knowledge, the other aspects of academia are going to come into place. They will learn
procedures based on many lessons or the ‘need to know’ the procedure. They will learn how to
apply content from other opportunities which could be a lecture from their teacher, could be the
Internet, it could be a book that they were learning, or it could be the collaboration between their
peers. My first recommendation to explore this impact over time is to lead a pre-and post-
assessment study using validated assessments for the three constructs that would provide more
evidence of time-bound growth in the students. A larger sample size should be part of that
research. A longitudinal study of these students would further validate or invalidate the claims
that long-term maker experiences benefit these individuals beyond the K–12 experience. It
would also construct a validated matrix for identifying individuals who are entrepreneurially
gifted. Furthermore, it should include connections and correlations between the K–12 maker
experiences and future job disciplines, fields of study, and evidence of entrepreneurial success.
A second line of inquiry may be addressed. Since the idea of maker learning does not
necessitate a permanent, physical space, an expansion on this study would be to investigate what
influence maker learning has when it is situated in other forms such as maker carts, or multiple
spaces. My findings provide some impetus to suggest that the results would be similar since a
263

portion of my observations included virtual making during the COVID-19 closure. The results of
those data were similar to the more typical makers’ space setting. There was increased
partnership and opportunities for technique demonstrations between the educator and the student.
Finally, since the findings support a new category of giftedness, additional research is
needed to determine whether this would increase GATE identification and promote increased
equity among underrepresented populations. In itself, the category of entrepreneurial giftedness
would need to be studied to determine its signaling effectiveness on students over time and its
impact on expanding K–12 opportunities that are typically afforded GATE students identified in
the intellectual category. Often success factors are based on grades, enrollment in high-level
courses, and high scores on standardized tests and similar achievement tests. In order to balance
that status quo approach, constructs for social capital and human capital should be included in
this inquiry so that success factors can be determined holistically.
Conclusion
Educational sites need to have a meaningful vision for meaningful organizational change
to occur. The effort is worth it since maker learning results in increased content mastery, CreaT,
CT and motivation, and stakeholder engagement. Andrew captured the essence of what defines
the maker experience and sets a school apart as a maker school:
I think it's because they have this super cool space that inspires and allows them to, you
know, almost whatever they can think up. They've got the materials right there to do it. It,
they don't have to just think about it, draw it, they can actually go pull out a drawer or
open a cabinet and put out some stuff and try it out. And that's that's what maker space is
all about, right? It's the trying things, right things, and see what you come up with. And
sometimes it fails. Sometimes you get something inspiring.
264

When building a culture and climate that supports the type of learning so unique to
makers’ spaces, success depends on the stakeholders’ belief in their philosophy of learning and
subsequent branding. As humans, we all have gifts that we display, or they may remain
concealed until given the opportunity to reveal them. We fulfill our human nature and embrace
our role as sub-creator when we realize that we are destined to make (Reinke, 2020). A school
must adopt a maker mindset to move forward because it impacts the choices in curriculum, the
way that teaching and learning take place, and the “what” of the school site’s system players’
values and beliefs. That philosophy immersed within a classroom to the site level will guide the
activities and experiences while being critically conscious of curriculum promotion and
pedagogy to promote student learning (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004). Vygotsky and Piaget planted
the seed for the maker mindset and advocated for components such as agency and inventiveness
that revealed “innovative thinkers instead of well-trained consumers” (Flores, 2016, para. 2). As
Connie shared, the “focus is on providing students with an enriching school experience because
of the school climate that we create. It’s a magical place with a new level of rigor.”
Makers’ spaces elucidate creative giftedness in students who may not have been
previously identified as gifted. The National Association for Gifted Children (2015) recognized
making as a valid way to support gifted learners. In the same way, that makers’ spaces open the
door to reveal creative giftedness, they also move forward CreaT in previously identified
students by nature of its embedded failures and lengthy problem-solving tasks. The complexity
of the maker tasks led to the conundrum of not being able to arrive at a solution or a set of
solutions. That results in temporary failure when the design does not work according to the
student’s or the team’s desired result. For GATE students, this process of positive disintegration
is needed for students with intense OEs to go through to realize their gifts fully. Those students
265

who went through this positive disintegration, who may have been used to solving problems
quickly or without much long-term effort, grew in their CreaT. Those who struggled to apply grit
had less growth. Makers’ spaces offer the opportunity to learners which brings the learner to
different pathways of opportunity and experiences. We need this to happen in our economy to
surface and construct great ideas. A friend in his upper fifties in the aerospace industry shared
with me that when he entered the industry some 30 years ago, his colleagues came from
backgrounds that included farming, mechanics, building, and other industries that gave them the
opportunity to overcome problems with their hands. This made them successful as aerospace
engineers because they had learned through experiences in school and in life how to solve
mechanical and construction problems with their hands. He shared that these days new
employees are unable to build and put together aerospace machines and devices because they
have not had those experiences, and now it actually requires more people to build because of that
lack of experience. Maker learning teaches students not to merely accept an initial proposition or
argument, which Francis Schaeffer cautions people against just believing what they hear without
any critical analysis (Schaeffer, 1976). Through their positive influence on CreaT, CT, and
motivation, Makers’ spaces can prepare our students to signal confidence in a problem space
such as the engineering industry. McCullough (1998, p. 196), who stated, “Acute knowledge of a
medium’s structure comes not by theory but through involvement,” described the sociocultural
practice of making as valuable because learners “experience the work of a practitioner while
advancing one’s knowledge toward expertise in either an authentic setting or an artificial, but
contextualized setting.” The students did not need to be experts. They may have been the lead
student driving the discussion and interaction of ideas or they may have been the learner at the
periphery of the group who still added to the value of the design and experience by subsequent
266

design or construction actions. Makers’ spaces open doors for multiple non-traditional learning
contexts that are needed in our 21st century state of flux. Mayer (2008) cautioned that we cannot
replicate the practitioner’s work because expertise in the discipline should be pre-existent; but
the practice to be a practitioner is also crucial to conceptualize disciplinary knowledge the
learner needs to experience in an authentic, not the superficial classroom setting (Maxwell,
2006).

267

References
Abdallah, M. M. S., & Mohammad, M. M. M. (2016). Educational views for developing the pre-
university education system. In The 5th Academic Conference of Assiut University
College of Education (pp. 1–61). ERIC Clearinghouse.
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang,
D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A
Stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326084
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T.
(2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 85(2), 275–314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551063
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based
instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017
Amabile, T. M., Goldfarb, P., & Brackfleld, S. C. (1990). Social influences on creativity:
Evaluation, coaction, and surveillance. Creativity Research Journal, 3(1), 6–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419009534330
Ambrose, D., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2016). Creative intelligence in the 21st century:
Grappling with enormous problems and huge opportunities (Vol. 11). Springer.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
American Management Association. (2010). Executive summary: AMA 2012 critical skills
survey.
268

Anderman, E. & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. http://www.education.
com/reference/article/attribution-theory/
Anderson, C. (2012). Makers: the new industrial revolution. Random House Business Books.
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control
processes. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 89–195.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60422-3
Axtell. (1966). Discontinuities in the perception of curiosity in gifted preadolescents. The Gifted
Child Quarterly, 10(2), 78–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698626601000206
Baek, M.-J., Park, M.-S., Kwon, K.-A., & Ryu, H.-Y. (2018). ISER 130th International
Conference. In Proceedings of ISER International Conference (pp. 9–13).
https://worldresearchlibrary.org/proceeding.php?pid=1637
Bagley, W. C. (1941). The case for essentialism in education. In Parkay, F. W., Anctil, E. J., &
Hass, G. (Eds.), Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing quality educational
programs (pp. 28–31). Prentice Hall.
Bandura. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology., 52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bandura, A. (2015). On deconstructing commentaries regarding alternative theories of self-
regulation. Journal of Management., 41(4), 1025–1044.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315572826
Bandura, A., Jones, M. R., & Vinacke, W. E. (1962). Social learning through imitation. In
Nebraska symposium of motivation, 1962, 10, pp. 211–269). University of Nebraska
Press.
269

Baraldi, E., Guercini, S., Lindahl, M., & Perna, A. (2020). Introducing and framing the
connections between passion and entrepreneurship. Passion and Entrepreneurship, 1–28.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47933-6_1
Barshay, J. (2021, March 15). Scientific research on how to teach Critical Thinking Contradicts
Education trends. The Hechinger Report. Retrieved August 22, 2021, from
https://hechingerreport.org/scientific-research-on-how-to-teach-critical-thinking-
contradicts-education-trends/
Barton, A. C., Tan, E., & Greenberg, D. (2017). The makerspace movement: Sites of possibilities
for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM. Teachers College
Record, 119(6), 1.
Beers, K. (2010). The 2009 NCTE presidential address sailing over the edge: Navigating the
uncharted waters of a world gone flat. Research in the Teaching of English, 44(3), 340–
352.
Ben-Eliyahu, A. (2019). A situated perspective on self-regulated learning from a person-by-
context perspective. High Ability Studies, 30(1–2), 199–236.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1568828
Bischoff, K., & Tach, L. (2020). School choice, neighborhood change, and racial imbalance
between public elementary schools and surrounding neighborhoods. Sociological
Science, 7(4), 75–99. https://doi.org/10.15195/v7.a4
Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A., (2015). Making Things Hard on Yourself, But in a Good Way:
Creating Desirable Difficulties to Enhance Learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher & J. R.
Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental
contributions to society (pp. 55–64). Worth Publishers.
270

Black, H., Soto, L., & Spurlin, S. (2016). Thinking about thinking about leadership:
Metacognitive ability and leader developmental readiness. New Directions for Student
Leadership, 2016(149), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20164
Bland, L. C., Coxon, S., Chandler, K., & Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2010). Science in the city:
Meeting the needs of urban gifted students with Project Clarion. Gifted Child Today
Magazine, 33(4), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621751003300412
Blikstein, P., & Krannich, D. (2013). The makers’ movement and FabLabs in education:
experiences, technologies, and research. Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 613–616.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2485760.2485884
Bong, M., Cho, C., Ahn, H. S., & Kim, H. J. (2012). Comparison of self-beliefs for predicting
student motivation and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(5), 336–
352. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.627401
Borland, J. (2004). Issues and practices in the identification and education of gifted students
from under-represented groups. U.S. Department of Education.
Bracken, B. A., Bai, W., Fithian, E., Lamprecht, M. S., Little, C., & Quek, C. (2003). The Test of
Critical Thinking; Examiners manual. Center for Gifted Education, The College of
William and Mary. https://education.wm.edu/centers/cfge/_documents/resources/
tctfinalmanual.pdf
Brake, D. R. (2012). David Gauntlett, making is connecting: The social meaning of creativity,
from DIY and knitting to YouTube and Web 2.0. Information, Communication & Society,
15(9), 1392–1393. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2011.602093
271

Bredo, E. (1997). The social construction of learning. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of
academic learning: Construction of knowledge (pp. 3–45). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012554255-5/50002-8
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1996). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. In
H. McLellan (Ed.), Situated learning perspectives (pp. 19–44). Educational Technology
Publications. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press.
Burke, W. W. (2018). Organization change: Theory and practice (5th ed.). SAGE.
Butler, H. A., Pentoney, C., & Bong, M. P. (2017). Predicting real-world outcomes: Critical
thinking ability is a better predictor of life decisions than intelligence. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 25, 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.06.005
Cadle. (2015). A Completion Mindset: Bridging the Gap Between Creative Thinking and
Creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 172–177.
https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000019
Calero, M. D., García-Martín, M. B., Jiménez, M. I., Kazén, M., Araque, A. (2007). Self-
regulation advantage for high-iq children: Findings from a research study. Learning and
Individual Differences, 17(4), 328–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.012
California Department of Education (2005), Gifted and talented education program resource
guide. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt/gt/index.asp
Carbonell-Foulquié, P., Munuera-Alemán, J. L., & Rodrı
́ guez-Escudero, A. I. (2004). Criteria
employed for go/no-go decisions when developing successful highly innovative products.
Industrial Marketing Management, 33(4), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-
8501(03)00080-4
272

Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (2018). The psychology of human-computer interaction.
Crc Press.
Carman, C. A., Walther, C. A. P., & Bartsch, R. A. (2018). Using the Cognitive Abilities Test
(CogAT) 7 Nonverbal Battery to identify the gifted/talented: An investigation of
demographic effects and norming plans. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 193–209.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752097
Carson, J. (2005). Objectivism and education: A response to David Elkind’s “The problem with
constructivism.” The Educational Forum, 69(3), 232–282.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720508984692
CASEL. (n.d.). Fundamentals of SEL. What is SEL? - CASEL Schoolguide.
https://schoolguide.casel.org/what-is-sel/what-is-sel/
Cazden, Cope, B., Fairclough, N., Gee, J., Kalantzis, M., Kress, G., Luke, A., Luke, C.,
Michaels, S., & Nakata, M. (1999). A pedagogy of Multiliteracies Designing Social
Futures. Multiliteracies: Lit Learning, 66(1), 19–46.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203979402-6
Chaffee, J. (2019). Thinking critically. Cengage.
Chatterji, M. (2005). Evidence on “what works”: An argument for extended-term mixed-method
(ETMM) evaluation designs. Educational Researcher, 34(5), 14–24.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034005014
Chaudhary, N., & Pillai, P. (2016). Creativity and Indian culture. In The Palgrave handbook of
creativity and culture research (pp. 391–405). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-46344-9
273

Chemi, T. (2015). The teaching artist as cultural learning entrepreneur: An introductory
conceptualization. Teaching Artist Journal, 13(2), 84–94.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15411796.2015.997114
Chen, K., & Ling, T. (2010). Creativity-provoking design education based on Jungian
psychoanalysis theory. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4555–4560.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.730
Clancey, W. J. (1995). A tutorial on situated learning. In J. Self (Ed.), Proceedings of the
International Conference on Computers and Education (pp. 49–70).
http://cogprints.org/323/00/139.htm
Clapham, M. M. (2004). The convergent validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking and
Creativity Interest Inventories. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(5), 828–
841. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404263883
Clark, & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: a guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Pub.
Clark, R. E. (1982). Antagonism between achievement and enjoyment in ATI studies.
Educational Psychologist, 17(2), 92–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461528209529247
Clark, R. E. (1999). The CANE model of motivation to learn and to work: A two-stage process
of goal commitment and effort. In Lowyck, J. (Ed.). Trend in corporate training (pp. 1–
25). University of Leuven Press.
Clark, R. E. (2015). Motivating performance: Part 1-Diagnosing and solving motivation
problems. Performance Improvement, 54(8), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21503
274

Clark, R. E., & Choi, S. (2005). Five design principles for experiments on the effects of animated
pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 209–225.
https://doi.org/10.2190/7LRM-3BR2-44GW-9QQY
Clark, R. E., & Saxberg, B. (2018). Engineering motivation using the belief-expectancy-control
framework. Interdisciplinary Education and Psychology, 2(1).
https://doi.org/10.31532/interdiscipeducpsychol.2.1.004
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on
mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13–20.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x023007013
Cochran-Smith, M., & Dudley-Marling, C. (2012). Diversity in teacher education and special
education: The issues that divide. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 237–244.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112446512
Colangelo, N., Kerr, B., Christensen, P., & Maxey, J. (1993). A comparison of gifted
underachievers and gifted high achievers. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(4), 155–160.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629303700404
Columbus Group. (1991). Unpublished transcript of the meeting of the Columbus Group.
Conard, E. (2017, August 16). America’s got talent, but not nearly enough. Wall Street Journal.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-got-talent-but-not-nearly-enough-1502924335.
Cosgrove, D. R. (2013). Improving teaching and learning of critical thinking across the
curriculum at a large research university: An empirical study using qualitative
methods (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge).
Creswell, J. W. (2014). The selection of a research approach. In Research design: Qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed method approaches (pp. 3–23). SAGE Publications.
275

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage publications.
Cropper, C. (1998). Is competition an effective classroom tool for the gifted student? Gifted
Child Today Magazine, 21(3), 28–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621759802100309
Cunningham, S. (2011). Can creativity be taught? And why should it be? In Wright, S., Holden,
J., Kieffer, J., & Newbigin (Eds.) Creativity money love: Learning for the 21st century
(pp. 22–23). Creative Blueprint.
Dąbrowski, K. (1966). The theory of positive disintegration. International Journal of Psychiatry,
2(2), 229–249.
Daniels, S., & Piechowski, M. M. (2009). Living with intensity: Understanding the sensitivity,
excitability, and emotional development of gifted children, adolescents, and adults. Great
Potential Press.
Datta, L. (1997). A pragmatic basis for mixed-method designs. New Directions for Evaluation,
1997(74), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1070
Dɑvïd. (2017, October 27). What is a source for Richard Riley's famous quote about preparing
students for the future? Academia Stack Exchange.
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/97988/what-is-a-source-for-richard-rileys-
famous-quote-about-preparing-students-for-t
Dede, C. (2010). Comparing Frameworks for 21st Century Skills. In J. A. Bellanca & R. S.
Brandt (Eds.), 21st Century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 51–76). Solution
Tree Press.
de Bono, E. (1995). Serious creativity. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 18(5), 12–.
276

de Jesus, S. N., Rus, C. L., Lens, W., & Imaginário, S. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and creativity
related to product: A meta-analysis of the studies published between 1990–2010.
Creativity Research Journal, 25(1), 80–84.
Delisle, J. R. (2015). Differentiation doesn’t work. Education Week, 34(15), 28–36.
Delisle, J. R. (2018, March 15). Doing poorly on purpose: Why smart kids choose to not do well.
Teaching Channel. https://learn.teachingchannel.com/blog/2018/03/15/doing-poorly-on-
purpose/
Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level
schools. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473–490.
https://doi.org/10.1086/499651
Denler, H. H., Wolters, C. A., & Benzon, M. B. (2014). Social cognitive theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
deNoyelles, A., Milanés, C. R., & Dunlap, K. (2016). Ms/Use of technology: Reflections on
Feminist Pedagogy from the Technological Front Line. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches
to Teaching Literature, Language, Culture, and Composition, 16(3), 481–509.
https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-3600813
Dimaano, L. J. (2011). Resolving inequity from meritocracy in gifted education. Talent
Development and Excellence, 3(1), 41–43.
Doğanay, A., Sarı, M. (2018). Effect of undergraduate education on the educational philosophies
of prospective teachers: A longitudinal study. Uluslararası Eğitim Programları Ve
Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 8(1), 01–22. https://doi.org/10.31704/ijocis.2018.001
Domen, J., Hornstra, L., Weijers, D., van der Veen, I., & Peetsma, T. (2020). Differentiated need
support by teachers: Student‐specific provision of autonomy and structure and relations
277

with student motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 403–423.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12302
Donohoe, F. (2011). Experiential learning: How Further Education must foster a new generation
of entrepreneurialism In Wright, S., Holden, J., Kieffer, J., & Newbigin (Eds.) Creativity
money love: Learning for the 21st century (pp. 22–23). Creative Blueprint.
Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations (Cambridge, Mass.), 7(3), 11–14.
https://doi.org/10.1162/INOV_a_00135
Dougherty, D., Conrad, A., & O'Reilly, T. (2016). Free to make how the Maker Movement is
changing our schools, our jobs, and our Minds. North Atlantic Books.
Duckworth, A. L., & Yeager, D. S. (2015). Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities
other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44(4),
237–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15584327
Duesbery, L., & Justice, P. (2015). Effects of an Elementary Language Arts Unit on Critical
Thinking, Reading, and Writing. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(1), 148-155.
Dweck. (2002). Self-theories: their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology
Press.
Dweck, C. (2015). Carol Dweck revisits the growth mindset. Education Week, 35(5), 20–24.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. The American Psychologist,
41(10), 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
Eccles, J. S. (2006). Expectancy-value motivational theory. http://www.education.
com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
278

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’
achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality & Social Psychology
Bulletin, 21(3), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295213003
Educational Records Bureau. (2021, November 30). CTP score report help. Educators.
https://www.erblearn.org/ctpscorereporthelp/
Edwards, S. L. (2007). Critical thinking: A two-phase framework. Nurse Education in Practice.,
17(2), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2006.09.004
Elliott, M. A., Armitage, C. J., Baughan, C. J. (2005). Exploring the beliefs underpinning
drivers’ intentions to comply with speed limits. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 8(6), 459–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2005.08.002
Elliott, R., & Timulak, L. (2005). Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative research.
In J. Miles & P. Gilbert (Eds.), A Handbook of Research Methods for Clinical and Health
Psychology. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780198527565.003.0011
Emerick, L. J. (1992). Academic underachievement among the gifted: Students’ perceptions of
factors that reverse the pattern. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(3), 140–146.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629203600304
Ennis, R. H. (2018). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. Topoi, 37(1), 165–184.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
Eskreis-Winkler, L., Shulman, E. P., Young, V., Tsukayama, E., Brunwasser, S. M., &
Duckworth, A. L. (2016). Using wise interventions to motivate deliberate practice.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(5), 728–744.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000074
279

Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). Subchapter IX-General Provisions, Title 20-Education.
Falkner, K., Levi, L., & Carpenter, T. (1999). Early childhood corner: Children's understanding
of equality: A foundation for algebra. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6(4), 232–236.
https://doi.org/10.5951/tcm.6.4.0232
Fife, W. (2021). Counting as a qualitative method: Grappling with the reliability issue in
ethnographic research. Palgrave Macmillan.
Filion, L. J. (2015). Entrepreneurs and facilitation. International Council for Small Business.
Filion, L. J. (2021). Defining the entrepreneur. World Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, 72–83.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839104145.00015
Fisher, D. B., & Frey, N. (2021, September 21). Show & tell: A video column/why do students
disengage? ASCD. Retrieved August 22, 2021, from
https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/show-and-tell-a-video-column-why-do-students-
disengage
Fleming, L. (2015). Worlds of making: Best practices for establishing a makerspace for your
school. Corwin Press.
Florea, N. M., & Hurjui, E. (2015). Critical thinking in elementary school children. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 565–572.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.161
Flores, C. (2016, April 24). Constructionism, a learning theory and a model for maker education
[web log comment]. http://fablearn.stanford.edu/fellows/blog/constructionism-learning-
theory-and-model-maker-education
280

Fong, C. J., & Krause, J. M. (2014). Lost confidence and potential: a mixed methods study of
underachieving college students’ sources of self-efficacy. Social Psychology of
Education, 17(2), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9239-1
Ford, D. Y., Harris, J. J., Tyson, C. A., & Trotman, M. F. (2001). Beyond deficit thinking:
Providing access for gifted African American students. Roeper Review, 24(2), 52–58.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190209554129
Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College
Press.
Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning.
Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice, 2, 8–33.
Freigang, S., Schlenker, L., & Köhler, T. (2018). A conceptual framework for designing smart
learning environments. Smart Learning Environments, 5(1), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-018-0076-8
Gagné. (1997). Critique of Morelock’s (1996) definitions of giftedness and talent. Roeper
Review, 20(2), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199709553858
Gagné, F. (2011). Academic talent development and the equity issue in gifted education. Talent
Development & Excellence, 3(1), 3–22
Garrett, K. (2011, November 15). Your move: Gifted children shouldn't become pawns to
categorical flexibility. CSBA.
https://www.csba.org/en/Newsroom/CASchoolsMagazine/2011/Winter/InThisIssue/Gifte
dEd_Winter2011.
Gee, J. P. (2015). Social linguistics and literacies. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315722511-11
281

Gelder, T. van. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College
Teaching, 53(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.1.41-48
Gholson, B., & Craig, S. D. (2006). Promoting constructive activities that support vicarious
learning during computer-based instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 119–
139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9006-3
Gladwell, M. (2019). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Back Bay
Books/Little, Brown and Company.
Glăveanu, V. P., & Lahlou, S. (2012). Through the creator’s eyes: Using the subjective camera to
study craft creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(2–3), 152–162.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.677293
Gold, S. (1984). Sixty years of programming for the gifted in Cleveland. Phi Delta Kappan,
65(7), 497–499.
Greene, M. L., Kellam, N. N., & Coley, B. C. (2019, April), Black men in the making: Engaging
in maker spaces promotes agency and identity for Black males in engineering. Paper
presented at 2019 CoNECD – The Collaborative Network for Engineering and
Computing Diversity, Crystal City, Virginia. https://peer.asee.org/31744
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: dispositions, skills,
structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. The American Psychologist, 53(4),
449–455. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.53.4.449
282

Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. M. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063
Handley, S. J., Newstead, S. E., & Trippas, D. (2011). Logic, beliefs, and instruction: A test of
the default interventionist account of belief bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(1), 28–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021098
Hansen, C. Z. (2018, July 20). When lazy doesn’t make sense. Lecture presented at the 34th
Supporting Emotional Needs of the Gifted 2018 National Conference, San Diego, CA.
Harley. (2018). PRESIDENT’S FORUM: Thoughts on Continuity and Change. Naval War
College Review, 71(2), 12–.
Hass, R. W., Katz-Buonincontro, J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2016). Disentangling creative
mindsets from creative self-efficacy and creative identity: Do people hold fixed and
growth theories of creativity? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts., 10(4),
436–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000081
Hatch, M. (2014). The maker movement manifesto: rules for innovation in the new world of
crafters, hackers, and tinkerers (1st ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Hayenga, A. O., & Corpus, J. H. (2010). Profiles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: A
person-centered approach to motivation and achievement in middle school. Motivation
and Emotion, 34(4), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-010-9181-x
Haynes, B. (2020). Can creativity be taught? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(1), 34–44.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2019.1594194
283

Heath, S. B. (1996). The sense of being literate: Historical and cross-cultural features. In R. Barr,
M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research
(Vol 2., pp. 2–25).
Helfand, M., Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2016). The four-C model of creativity: Culture
and context. In M. Helfand, J. C. Kaufman, & R. A. Beghetto (Eds.), The Palgrave
handbook of creativity and culture research, 15–36. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-
46344-9_2
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1),
569–598. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416
Herman, J. L., & Linn, R. L. (2013). On the Road to Assessing Deeper Learning: The Status of
Smarter Balanced and PARCC Assessment Consortia. (CRESST report 823). Los
Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation,
Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
Hiatt, J. (2006). ADKAR: a model for change in business, government, and our community (1st
ed.). Prosci Learning Center Publications.
Hira, A., Hynes, M. M. (2018). People, means, and activities: A conceptual framework for
realizing the educational potential of makerspaces. Education Research International,
2018, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6923617
Hon, Bloom, M., & Crant, J. M. (2014). Overcoming Resistance to Change and Enhancing
Creative Performance. Journal of Management, 40(3), 919–941.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415418
Honey, M., & Kanter, D. E. (2013). Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM
innovators (pp. 1–6). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203108352
284

Hong, E., & Ditzler, C. (2013). Incorporating technology and web tools in creativity instruction.
In K. H. Kim (Ed.), Creatively gifted students are not like other gifted students:
Research, theory, and practice (pp. 17–38). Sense Publishers.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-149-8
Howard, L. W., Tang, T. L.-P., & Jill Austin, M. (2015). Teaching critical thinking skills:
Ability, motivation, intervention, and the pygmalion effect. Journal of Business Ethics,
128(1), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2084-0
Hsieh, C., Hurst, E., Jones, C. I., & Klenow, P. J. (2019). The allocation of talent and U.S.
economic growth. Econometrica, 87(5), 1439–1474. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA11427
Hughes, J. M. (2017). Digital making with “at-risk” youth. The International Journal of
Information and Learning Technology, 34(2), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-08-
2016-0037
Hughes, J., Morrison, L., Mamolo, A., Laffier, J., & de Castell, S. (2019). Addressing bullying
through critical making. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 309–325.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12714
Huntington-Klein, N. (2021). Human capital versus signaling is empirically unresolvable.
Empirical Economics, 60(5), 2499–2531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01837-z
Hutchins, R. M. (1938). The organization and subject matter of general education. Bulletin of the
Department of Secondary-School Principals of the National Education Association,
22(73), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263653802207301
Irie, N. R., Hsu, Y. C., & Ching, Y. H. (2019). Makerspaces in diverse places: A comparative
analysis of distinctive national discourses surrounding the maker movement and
education in four countries. TechTrends, 63(4), 397–407.
285

Irvin, M. J., Byun, S., Meece, J. L., Reed, K. S., & Farmer, T. W. (2016). School characteristics
and experiences of African American, Hispanic/Latino, and Native American youth in
rural communities: Relation to educational aspirations. Peabody Journal of Education,
91(2), 176–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1151739
ISTE. (2018). ISTE standards. https://www.iste.org/standards
Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49–62.
https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800406
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2020). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. SAGE.
Johnson, J., Im‐Bolter, N., & Pascual‐Leone, J. (2003). Development of mental attention in
gifted and mainstream children: The role of mental capacity, inhibition, and speed of
processing. Child Development, 74(6), 1594–1614. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-
8624.2003.00626.x
Jolly, J. L., & Robins, J. H. (2016). After the Marland Report: Four decades of progress? Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 39(2), 132–150.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216640937
Kafai, Y. B., Peppler, K. A., Lemke, J., & Warschauer, M. (2011). Youth, technology, and DIY:
Developing participatory competencies in creative media production. Review of Research
in Education, 35, 89–119. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X10383211
Kamenetz, A. (2015, September 28). Who are the 'gifted and talented' and what do they need?
NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/09/28/443193523/who-are-the-gifted-and-
talented-and-what-do-they-need.
286

Kaplan, C. (1996). Predictive validity of the WPPSI‐R: A four year follow‐up study. Psychology
in the Schools, 33(3), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-
6807(199607)33:33.0.CO;2-S
Karambelkar, M., & Bhattacharya, S. (2017). Onboarding is a change: Applying change
management model ADKAR to onboarding. Human Resource Management International
Digest, 25(7), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1108/HRMID-04-2017-0073
Kaufman, J. C. (2016). The psych 101 series: Creativity 101 (2nd ed.). Springer.
Kaufman, J. C. (2021, March 25). The-four-C-model-of-creativity. Walden University. Retrieved
April 17, 2021, from https://www.waldenu.edu/online-masters-programs/ms-in-
education/resource/the-four-c-model-of-creativity#Q1R9r6KQWOdZIO4u.99
Kennedy, D. M. (1997). The gifted kids’ survival guide: A teen handbook. Gifted and Talented
International, 12(1), 47–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.1997.11672868
Kettler, T. (2014). Critical thinking skills among elementary school students: Comparing
identified gifted and general education student performance. Gifted Child Quarterly,
58(2), 127–136. https:///doi.org/10.1177/0016986214522508
Kezar, A. J. (2011). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century:
Recent research and conceptualizations: ASHE-ERIC higher education report, Volume
28, Number 4. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
Kim, K. H. (2011a). Proven reliability and validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
(TTCT). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(4), 314–315. http://
doi.org/10.1037/a0021916
287

Kim, K. H. (2011b). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the
Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 285–295.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.627805
Kirschner, F. C., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). A cognitive load approach to collaborative
learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 31–42.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9095-2
Kirschner, P. A., Kirschner, F. C., & Paas, F. (2006a). Cognitive load theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006b). Why minimal guidance during instruction
does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Krahenbuhl, K. S. (2016). Student-centered education and constructivism: Challenges, Concerns,
and clarity for teachers. The Clearing House, 89(3), 97–105.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2016.1191311
Krouse, J. H., & Krouse, H. J. (1981). Toward a multimodal theory of academic
underachievement. Educational Psychologist, 16(3), 151–164.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461528109529237
Kuhl, J. (2000). A functional-design approach to motivation and self-regulation: The dynamics
of personality systems and interactions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner
(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 111–169). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50034-2
288

Landis, R. N., & Reschly, A. L. (2013). Reexamining gifted underachievement and dropout
through the lens of student engagement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(2),
220–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353213480864
Lange, A. A. (2019). Technology, instructional methods, and the systemic messiness of
innovation: improving reading fluency for low socio-economic elementary school
students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(5), 1333–1350.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09675-2
Lasnetski, J. (2021, July 20). ERB CTP Testing Results question. Member Services Director
Laurillard, D., Charlton, P., Craft, B., Dimakopoulos, D., Ljubojevic, D., Magoulas, G.,
Masterman, E., Pujadas, R., Whitley, E., & Whittlestone, K. (2013). A constructionist
learning environment for teachers to model learning designs. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 29(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00458.x
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge
University Press.
Lee, H., Karakis, N., Olcay Akce, B., Azzam Tuzgen, A., Karami, S., Gentry, M., & Maeda, Y.
(2021). A meta-analytic evaluation of Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test: Exploring its
validity evidence and effectiveness in equitably identifying gifted students. The Gifted
Child Quarterly, 65(3), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986221997800
Lee, J. M. (2012). Mental leap. Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, 2194–2194.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_1557
Lee, S., Kim, T., Kim, J., Kang, S., & Yoon, J. (2019). The effect of a design thinking-based
maker education program on the creative problem solving ability of elementary school
289

students. Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education, 23(1), 73–84.
https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2019.23.1.73
Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (1996). With what skills are computers a complement? The American
Economic Review, 86(2), 258–262.
Lewin, T. (2010, July 21). Many states adopt national standards for their school. New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/education/21standards.html
Ley, J., Nelson, S., & Beltyukova, S. (1996). Congruence of aspirations of rural youth with
expectations held by parents and school staff. Journal of Research in Rural Education,
12(3), 133.
Lin, C.-J. M. (1999). Motivation and web-based instruction: A case study of using CANE Model
to assess motivation problems and find solutions. Educational Media International,
36(4), 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952398990360407
Lin, C.-Y. (2017). Threshold effects of creative problem-solving attributes on creativity in the
math abilities of Taiwanese upper elementary students. Education Research
International, 2017, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4571383
Lipman, M. (1997). Thinking in community. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines,
16(4), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryctnews19971645
Los Angeles Unified School District (2016). Guidelines for Identifying Students as Gifted in the
Creative and Leadership Ability Categories (Reference No. 5233.1). Gibson, F.
MacArthur, J. F. (2020). Why the world rejects God's word. Culture. Grace Community Church.
Maker, C. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed
changes and a promising solution. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(1), 41–50.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629604000106
290

Maker Ed (n.d.). What is maker education. https://makered.org/about/what-is-maker-education/
Maltese, A. V., Simpson, A., & Anderson, A. (2018). Failing to learn: The impact of failures
during making activities. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 30, 116–124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.01.003
Marcon, R. A. (1995). Fourth-grade slump: The cause and cure. Principal, 74(5), 16–17.
Marland, S. P., Jr. (1971). Education of the gifted and talented–volume 1: Report to the Congress
of the United States by the U.S. commissioner of education. (ED056243). ERIC.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED056243
Marotta, S. (2021). Making sense of “maker”: Work, identity, and affect in the maker movement.
Environment and Planning. A, 53(4), 638–654.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X20964839
Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College
Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1099
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 International Results
in Science. timss2015.org/download-center. Retrieved March 17, 2020, from
http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-results/wp-
content/uploads/filebase/full%20pdfs/T15-International-Results-in-Science-Grade-8.pdf
Martinsuo, M., & Poskela, J. (2011). Use of evaluation criteria and innovation performance in
the front end of innovation. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(6), 896–
914. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00844.x
Marzano, R. J. (2011). The perils and promises of discovery learning. Educational Leadership,
69(1), 86–87.
291

Matei, C. (2018). Critical thinking and creativity. Euromentor Journal, 9(2), 41–47.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/2100354575/
Matthews, W. J. (2003). Constructivism in the classroom: Epistemology, history, and empirical
evidence. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(3), 51–64.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Maxwell, J. W. (2006). Re-situating constructionism. In J. Weiss, J. Nolan, J. Hunsinger, & P.
Trifonas (Eds.), The international handbook of virtual learning environments (pp. 279–
298). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-3803–7_11
Mayer. (2008). Advances in applying the science of learning and instruction to education.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), i–ii. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-
6053.2009.01037.x
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
McCarthy-Tucker, S. N. (1995). Teaching reality-based formal logic to adolescents to improve
critical thinking skills (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University).
McCullough, M. (1998). Abstracting craft: The practiced digital hand. MIT Press.
McEwan-Adkins, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What's good,
what's not, and how to tell the difference. Corwin Press.
McPhail, G. (2016). The fault lines of recontextualisation: The limits of constructivism in
education. British Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 294–313.
https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3199
292

McTighe, J., & Seif, E. (2010). An implementation framework to support 21st century skills. In
J. A. Bellanca & R. S. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn
(1st ed., pp. 149–172). Solution Tree Press.
McVeigh, M. (2014). Lighting the fire: can creativity be taught? Screen Education, 75, 56–63.
Menchaca, M., Bischoff, M., & Dara-Abrams, B. (2003, July). A model for systemic change
management in education [Paper presentation]. International Conference on Education
and Information Systems: Technologies and Applications, Orlando, Florida, USA.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mertens. (2012). Transformative Mixed Methods: Addressing Inequities. The American
Behavioral Scientist (Beverly Hills), 56(6), 802–813.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211433797
Millar, W. P. J. (2012). Diane Ravitch, the death and life of the Great American school system:
How testing and choice are Undermining Education. Historical Studies in Education/
Revue D'histoire De L'éducation. https://doi.org/10.32316/hse/rhe.v24i2.4296
Mills, K. A. (2009). Multiliteracies: interrogating competing discourses. Language and
Education, 23(2), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780802152762
Milner, H. R. (2003). Reflection, racial competence, and critical pedagogy: How do we prepare
pre-service teachers to pose tough questions? Race, Ethnicity and Education, 6(2), 193–
208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320308200
Mora-Flores, E., & Kaplan, S. (2012). Thinking like a disciplinarian: Developing academic
language in social studies classrooms. Social Studies Review, 51, 10–13.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1034979874/
293

Morelock, M. J. (1992). Giftedness: The view from within. Understanding Our Gifted, 4(3), 1,
11–15.
Morelock, M. J. (1996). On the nature of giftedness and talent: Imposing order on chaos. Roeper
Review, 19(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199609553774
Morelock, M. J. (1997). In response to Gagné’s critique. Roeper Review, 20(2), 85–87.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199709553859
Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for
ESTABLISHING reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100202
Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children
using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). The Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2),
155–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700206
Nash, W. R. (1974). The effects of a school for the gifted in averting the fourth grade slump in
creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 18(3), 168–170.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001698627401800308
Nasir, N. S., & Hand, V. M. (2006). Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race, culture, and
learning. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 449–475.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076004449
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II:
Learners, contexts, and cultures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/24783
294

National Association for Gifted Children & The Council of State Directors of Programs for the
Gifted. (2015). 2014–2015 state of the states in gifted education: Policy and practice
data.
National Council for the Social Studies. (2010). Principles for Learning A Foundation for
Transforming K–12 Education. Social Studies Standards.
https://www.socialstudies.org/sites/default/files/images/documents/Principles_for_Learni
ng.pdf
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (Ed.). (2000). Executive Summary Principles and
Standards for School Mathematics. Principles and Standards.
https://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Standards_and_Positions/PSSM_ExecutiveSummar
y.pdf
National Education Association. (2012). Preparing 21st century students for a global society: An
educator's guide to" the four Cs."
Nelson, K. C. (1989). Dabrowski's theory of positive disintegration. Advanced Development, 1,
1–14.
Neubert, J. (2016, July 4). 10 Ways Competitions Enhance Learning. Institute of Competition
Sciences. https://www.competitionsciences.org/2016/07/04/10-ways-competitions-
enhance-learning/
Newman, A., Obschonka, M., Moeller, J., & Chandan, G. G. (2021). Entrepreneurial passion: A
review, synthesis, and agenda for future research. Applied Psychology, 70(2), 816–860.
https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12236
Niemi, K. (2020, December 15). Niemi: CASEL is updating the most widely recognized
definition of social-emotional learning. Here's why.
295

https://www.the74million.org/article/niemi-casel-is-updating-the-most-widely-
recognized-definition-of-social-emotional-learning-heres-why/
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, Title IX, Part A § 115,
9101(22).
Norris, S. P. (1985). Synthesis of research on critical thinking. Educational Leadership, 42(8),
40–45.
Obama, B. H. (2009, March 10). President Obama's remarks to the Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10text-obama.html?auth=link-dismiss-
google1tap
OECD. (2019). Pisa 2018 results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do. PISA, OECD
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
O’Keefe, P. A., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. (2018). Implicit theories of interest: Finding
your passion or developing it? Psychological Science, 29(10), 1653–1664.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618780643
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2004). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (4th
ed.). Pearson Education.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. http://www.education.com/reference/ article/self-
efficacy-theory/
Palacio. (2012). Wonder. Alfred A. Knopf.
Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2017). Empirical studies on the maker
movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review. Entertainment
Computing, 18, 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2016.09.002
296

Papert, S. (1999). Eight big ideas behind the constructionist learning lab. Stager.
http://stager.org/articles/8bigideas.pdf
Papert, S. E., & Harel, I. E. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. E. Harel & S. E. Papert
(Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Ablex.
Park, M.-S., Baek, M.-J., Han, J.-H., & Yoon, E.-J. (2018). ISER 130th International
Conference. In Proceedings of ISER International Conference (pp. 14–18). Tokyo.
Retrieved November 15, 2021, from
https://worldresearchlibrary.org/proceeding.php?pid=1637.
Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2019). A Network of Batelle for Kids.
http://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21/frameworks-resources
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and
evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x
Pekrun, Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic Emotions in Students’ Self-
Regulated Learning and Achievement: A Program of Qualitative and Quantitative
Research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91–105.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The
science and design of educational assessment. National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/10019
Perdue, S. (2009, April 9). Testimony by Georgia governor Sonny Perdue - Competitiveness.
National Governors Association. https://www.nga.org/advocacy-
297

communications/testimony/testimony-by-georgia-governor-sonny-perdue-
competitiveness/
Peterson, R. E. (2003). Teaching how to read the world and change it: Critical pedagogy in the
intermediate grades. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical
pedagogy reader (pp. 365–387). Routledge.
Petress. (2004). Critical thinking: an extended definition. Education, 124(3), 461–.
Pine, B.J., & Gilmore, J.H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business
Review, 76(4), 97–105.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses of Torrance’s (1958 to present)
longitudinal data. Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 103–114.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1202_3
Plucker, J. A., Burroughs, N., & Song, R. (2010). Mind the (other) gap! The growing excellence
gap in K–12 education. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University.
Potterton, A. U. (2020). Parental accountability, school choice, and the invisible hand of the
market. Educational Policy, 34(1), 166–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904819881155
Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W. (2008). Creativity and certain personality traits:
Understanding the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation. Creativity Research Journal,
20(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410701841955
RaptumTrolls, (2014, April 14). Chuck E Cheese's TV commercial where a kid can be a kid
[Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/0vyRi0Ay1x0
298

Rayneri, L. J., Gerber, B. L., & Wiley, L. P. (2003). Gifted achievers and gifted underachievers:
The impact of learning style preferences in the classroom. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 14(4), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2003-434
Reeves, D. (2010). A framework for assessing 21st century skills. In J. A. Bellanca & R. S.
Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (1st ed., pp. 305–326).
Solution Tree Press.
Reinke, T. (Host). (2020, July 17). Seven lessons for productivity (No. 1500). [Audio podcast
episode]. Desiring God. https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/seven-lessons-for-
productivity
Reis, S. M., & Greene, M. J. (2015, September 9). Using self-regulated learning to reverse
underachievement in talented students. Renzulli Center for Creativity Gifted Education
and Talent Development. https://gifted.uconn.edu/schoolwide-enrichment-model/self-
regulated_learning_reverse_underachievement/#
Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we
know and where do we go? The Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152–170.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400302
Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the
21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 150–159.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212444901
Renzulli, J. S., & Brandon, L. E. (2017). Common sense about the under-representation issue: A
school-wide approach to increase participation of diverse students in programs that
develop talents and gifted behaviours. In Campbell, D. (Ed.). International Journal for
Talent Development and Creativity (pp. 71–94). The University of Connecticut, Storrs.
299

Renzulli, J. S., & Park, S. (2002). Giftedness and high school dropouts: A personal, family, and
school-related factors. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Renzulli, L. A., Werum, R. E., & Kronberg, A. (2020). The rise of homeschooling regulation in
the era of school choice: Legislative and judicial trends, 1972–2009. Sociological Forum
(Randolph, N.J.), 35(2), 297–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12582
Reynolds, C. R., & Fletcher-Janzen, E. (Eds.). (2007). Encyclopedia of special education: A
reference for the education of children, adolescents, and adults with disabilities and
other exceptional individuals (Vol. 3). John Wiley & Sons.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310.
Rimm, S. B. (2008). Why bright kids get poor grades and what you can do about it: A six-step
program for parents and teachers. Great Potential Press.
Rinehart, M. (2019). The maker movement in education. 1st Maker Space.
https://1stmakerspace.com/
Rinella, K. J., Brinsjord, S., & Yang, Y. (2001). Efficacious logic instruction: People are not
irremediably poor deductive reasoners. In J. D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.),
Proceedings of the twenty-third annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
Psychology Press
Roberson, S., & Woody, C. (2012). Declaring civil war on essentialist teaching. The Clearing
House., 85(5), 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2012.691567
Roeper, A. (2012). The Annemarie Roeper method of qualitative assessment (QA). Roeper
Consultation Service. http://roeperconsultationservice.blogspot.com/p/annemarie-roeper-
method-sm-of.html
300

Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers
should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12.
Royal, K. D., & Stockdale, M. R. (2015). The myth of learning styles: What medical educators
need to know. Ear, Nose, & Throat Journal, 94(4–5), 132–134.
Ruf, D. L. (2009). 5 levels of gifted: School issues and educational options. Great Potential
Press.
Rumberger, R. W., & Lim, S. A. (2008). Why students drop out of school: A review of 25 years
of research. California Dropout Research Project, 15, 1–3.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research
Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
Runco, M. A., & Pina, J. (2013). Imagination and personal creativity. Oxford Handbooks Online.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195395761.013.0024
Ruscio, J., Whitney, D. M., & Amabile, T. M. (1998). Looking inside the fishbowl of creativity:
Verbal and behavioral predictors of creative performance. Creativity Research Journal,
11(3), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1103_4
Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.
Sanséau, P.-Y., & Defélix, C. (2020). The leader-entrepreneur in an apprenticeship position. In
The success of apprenticeships: Views of stakeholders on training and learning (Vol. 3,
pp. 27–32). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119694793.ch4
Sarason, S. B. (2004). And what do you mean by learning? Heinemann.
Sawyer, R. K. (2001). Creating conversations: Improvisation in everyday discourse. Hampton
Press.
301

Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford
University Press.
S.B. 1038, 2003 Biennium, 2003–2004 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2003).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=200320040SB1038
Schaeffer, F. A. (1976). How should we then live? Crossway Books.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(96)90010-8
Schrader. (2015). Constructivism and Learning in the Age of Social Media: Changing Minds and
Learning Communities: Constructivism and Learning in the Age of Social Media. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2015(144), 23–35.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20160
Schraw, G. J., & Lehman, S. (2009). Interest.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/interest/
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-
regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(1),
7–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560600837578
Schweinle, A., Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2006). Striking the right balance: Students’
motivation and affect in elementary mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research,
99(5), 271–294. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.5.271-294
Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2006). Sociocultural theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/sociocultural-theory/
302

Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (1987). Defining critical thinking.
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766
Seeley, K. R. (2004). Gifted and talented students at risk. Focus on Exceptional Children, 37(4).
https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v37i4.6870
Seo, J. (2019). Is the maker movement inclusive of anyone? Three accessibility considerations to
invite blind makers to the making world. TechTrends, 63(5), 514–520.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00377-3
Seymour, G. (2018). The inclusive makerspace: Working with English language learners and
special education students. In H. Moorefield-Lang (Ed.), School Library Makerspaces in
Action (pp. 77–85). Libraries Unlimited
Shaughnessy, M., Ruf, D., Wallace, B., & Shaughnessy, M. (2015). A reflective conversation
with Deborah Ruf, President of TalentIgniter, USA. Gifted Education International,
31(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429413487400
Shavinina, L. V. (2008). Early signs of entrepreneurial giftedness. Gifted and Talented
International, 23(1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2008.11673508
Shavinina, L. V. (2013). The fundamentals of innovation education. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.),
The Routledge international handbook of innovation education (pp. 29–51). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203387146.ch3
Shindler. (2010). Transformative classroom management: positive strategies to engage all
students and promote a psychology of success (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Shively, K., Stith, K. M., & Rubenstein, L. D. (2018). Measuring what matters: Assessing
creativity, critical thinking, and the design process. Gifted Child Today Magazine., 41(3),
149–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217518768361
303

Shor, I. (1999). What is critical literacy? Journal of Pedagogy, Pluralism, and Practice, 1(4), 2.
Shortell, T. (n.d.). SOCIOLOGY 19: Principles of social research.
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/soc/courses/19/11.htm.
Silverman, L. K. (Ed.). (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Love.
Silverman, L. K. (2009). My love affair with Dabrowski's theory: A personal odyssey. Roeper
Review, 31(3), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190902993912
Silverman, L. K., & Gilman, B. J. (2020). Best practices in gifted identification and assessment:
Lessons from the WISC‐V. Psychology in the Schools, 57(10), 1569–1581.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22361
Silvia, P. J., Beaty, R. E., Nusbaum, E. C., Eddington, K. M., Levin-Aspenson, H., & Kwapil, T.
R. (2014). Everyday creativity in daily life: An experience-sampling study of ‘little c’
creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(2), 183–188.
doi:10.1037/a0035722.
Simonton, D. K. (2012). Creative productivity and aging: An age decrement – or not? In S. K.
Whitbourne & M. J. Sliwinski (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Adulthood and
Aging (pp. 477–496). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
Şirin Çetin, Çetin Şahin, Hüseyin mertol, Serdar Arcagök, & Derya Girgin. (2017). A
comparison of entrepreneurial skills of fourth-grade gifted and normal student’s in social
studies. Türk Üstün Zeka Ve Eğitim Dergisi, 7(2), 110–125.
Smagorinsky, P. (2013). What does Vygotsky provide for the 21st-century language arts
teacher?. Language Arts, 90(3), 192–204.
Snyder, C. R., Hoza, B., Pelham, W. E., Rapoff, M., Ware, L., Danovsky, M., Highberger, L.,
Ribinstein, H., & Stahl, K. J. (1997). The development and validation of the Children’s
304

Hope Scale. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 22(3), 399–421.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/22.3.399
So, K., Hu, Y. J., & Park, J. (2017). Making our schools more creative: Korea’s efforts and
challenges. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 16(4), 77-88.
Somanath, S., Morrison, L., Hughes, J., Sharlin, E., & Sousa, M. (2016). Engaging “at-risk”
students through maker culture activities. Proceedings of the TEI’16: Tenth International
Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, 150–158.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2839462.2839482
Sparks, S. D. (2020, November 20). How accessible is gifted education in your state? Education
Week. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school-
research/2017/07/how_accessible_is_gifted_education_in_your_state.html.
Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010
Sreekanth, N., Vivekanandam, R. & Singh, R. P. (2018). A constructionist learning atmosphere
for teachers to model learning styles.
http://ijetsr.com/images/short_pdf/1521784663_988-1001-
IETEH111_updatedauthor3_etsr.pdf
Stager, G. (2005, August 28–31). Papertian constructionism and the design of productive
contexts for learning [Paper presentation]. EuroLogo X, Warsaw, Poland.
Stahl, G. (2004). Building collaborative knowing. In J. W. Strijbos, P. A Kirschner, & R. L.
Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL. Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning Series (Vol 3). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-7921-4_3
305

Stanko-Kaczmarek, M. (2012). The effect of intrinsic motivation on the affect and evaluation of
the creative process among fine arts students. Creativity Research Journal, 24(4), 304–
310. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.730003
Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. The Journal of Psychology, 36(2), 311–322.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1953.9712897
Stentz, J. E., Plano Clark, V. L., & Matkin, G. S. (2012). Applying mixed methods to leadership
research: A review of current practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 1173–1183.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.001
Supplee, P. L. (1990). Reaching the gifted underachiever. New York: Teachers College Press.
Swiatek, M. A., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2003). Elementary and middle school student
participation in GIFTED programs: Are gifted students underserved? Gifted Child
Quarterly, 47(2), 118–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700203
Tanggaard, L., & Wegener, C. (2016). Why novelty is overrated. Journal of Education and
Work, 29(6), 728–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2015.1040379
The Foundation for Critical Thinking (Ed.). (n.d.). Defining Critical Thinking. Defining critical
thinking. https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766
Thorndike, R. L. (1963). The concepts of over and underachievement. Teachers College Press.
Thornton, M. (2020). Turning the word upside down: How Cantillon redefined the entrepreneur.
Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 23(3–4), 265–280.
https://doi.org/10.35297/qjae.010071
Tice. (1999). Critical thinking. The Education Digest, 65(5), 45–.
Tillier, W. (1999). A brief overview Dąbrowski's theory of positive disintegration and its
relevance for the gifted. http://www.positivedisintegration.com/gifted.htm
306

Torrance, E. P. (1962a). Cultural discontinuities and the development of originality of thinking.
Exceptional Children, 29(1), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440296202900102
Torrance, E. P. (1962b). Guiding creative talent. Prentice-Hall.
Torrance, E. P. (1962c). Non-test ways of identifying the creatively gifted. The Gifted Child
Quarterly, 6(3), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698626200600301
Torrance, E. P. (1967). Understanding the fourth grade slump in creative thinking. Final Report.
The University of Georgia.
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Predicting the creativity of elementary school children (1958–80) –and
the teacher who “made a difference.” The Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(2), 55–62.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628102500203
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. Sternberg (Ed.),
The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 43–75).
Cambridge University Press.
Torrance, E. P. (2008). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Interpretive manual. Scholastic
Testing Services.
Torrance, E. P., & Wu, T. (1981). A comparative longitudinal study of the adult creative
achievements of elementary school children identified as highly intelligent and as highly
creative. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 6(2), 71–76.
Tuovinen, J. E., & Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery
learning and worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 334–341.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.334
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
https://www.ed.gov/essa
307

van Dam, K., Oreg, S., & Schyns, B. (2008). Daily Work Contexts and Resistance to
Organisational Change: The Role of Leader-Member Exchange, Development Climate,
and Change Process Characteristics. Applied Psychology, 57(2), 313–334.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00311.x
van Holm. (2017). Makerspaces and Local Economic Development. Economic Development
Quarterly, 31(2), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242417690604
van Lier, L., & Walqui, A. (2012). Language and the Common Core State Standards. Stanford
University.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted
learners in the regular classroom. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 211–217.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_5
Vincent, L. (Interviewer) & Hatch, M. (Interviewee). (2013). The maker movement manifesto: A
conversation with Mark Hatch on a creative revolution [Interview transcript]. The
Finders Report. http://www.findingsreport.com/2013/10/17/the-maker-movement-
manifesto-a-conversation-with-mark-hatch-on-a-creative-revolution/
Vizcaíno, F. V., Cardenas, J. J., & Cardenas, M. (2021). A look at the social entrepreneur: The
effects of resilience and power distance personality traits on consumers’ perceptions of
corporate social sustainability. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
17(1), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00626-0
Vogler, K. E. (2008). Asking good questions. Educational Leadership, 65(9).
Von Culin, K. R., Tsukayama, E., & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). Unpacking grit: Motivational
correlates of perseverance and passion for long-term goals. The Journal of Positive
Psychology., 9(4), 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.898320
308

von Glasersfeld, E. (2005). Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.),
Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 3–7). Teachers College Press.
Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (2014). Making and tinkering: A review of the literature. National
Research Council Committee on out of school time STEM, 67, 1-55.
Vygotsky, L. S (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1979). Consciousness as a problem in the psychology of behavior. Soviet
Psychology, 17(4), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.2753/rpo1061-040517043
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozalin, Trans.). The MIT Press. (Original
work published 1962).
Wagner, T., & Compton, R. A. (2012). Creating innovators: the making of young people who
will change the world (1st Scribner hardcover ed.). Scribner.
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010). Accomplishment in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational
dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 860–871.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019454
Wai, J., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Helping disadvantaged and spatially talented students fulfill
their potential: Related and neglected national resources. Policy Insights from the
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 122–128.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215621310
Webb, J. T., Gore, J. L., Amend, E. R., & DeVries, A. R. (2007). A parent's guide to gifted
children (1st ed.). Great Potential Press.
West Virginia Standards for 21st Century Learning, W.Va. Code §18-9A-22 (2019).
https://apps.sos.wv.gov/adlaw/csr/readfile.aspx?DocId=54933&Format=PDF
309

Weston, A. (2010). Creativity for critical thinkers. Oxford University Press Canada.
Whelan, T. (2018, May). We are not all makers: The paradox of plurality in the maker
movement. In Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on
Computers and Accessibility (pp. 75–80).
Wieneke, K. C., Schaepe, K. S., Egginton, J. S., Jenkins, S. M., Block, N. C., Riley, B. A.,
Sifuentes, L. E., & Clark, M. M. (2019). The supervisor’s perceived role in employee
well-being: Results from Mayo Clinic. American Journal of Health Promotion, 33(2),
300–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117118784860
Willingham, D. T. (2020). Ask the cognitive scientist: How can educators teach critical thinking?
American Educator, 44(3), 41.
Wong, Q., Lacombe, M., Keller, R., Joyce, T., & OʼMalley, K. (2019). Leading change with
ADKAR. Nursing Management, 50(4), 28–35.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NUMA.0000554341.70508.75
Yamamoto, Y., & Holloway, S. D. (2010). Parental expectations and children’s academic
performance in sociocultural context. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 189–214.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9121-z
Yates, K. (2017). Sociocultural theory. Lecture presented at EDUC 525: Challenges in urban
education – Learning. University of Southern California.
Zeidner, M., & Stoeger, H. (2019). Self-regulated learning: A guide for the perplexed. High
Ability Studies, 30(1–2), 9–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1589369
Zeitz, L. E., & Sakai-Miller, S. (2016). Cultivating Innovation through Invention: How Rube
Goldberg Inventions Can Ignite Creativity. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg
(Eds.), Creative intelligence in the 21st century: Grappling with enormous problems and
310

huge opportunities (Vol. 11, Ser. Advances in Creativity and Giftedness, pp. 211–231).
Sense Publishers.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39).
Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background,
methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research
Journal, 45(1), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909
Zuryanty, K., Chandra, R., & Fitria, Y. (2019). Problem based learning: a way to improve critical
thinking ability of elementary school students on science learning. In 2nd International
Conference on Advance & Scientific Innovation (conference 1, Vol. 1424). IOP ebook
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1424/1/012037

311

Appendix A: Mixed-Methods Diagram

Note. Adapted from Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(5th ed., pp. 228–237), by J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, 2018, Sage Publications. Copyright
2018 by Sage Publications, Inc.

312

Appendix B: Educators Survey Questions
Teacher and Lab Facilitator Questions
Educator interview questions aligned to CT and CreaT. Teacher survey questions were based on
a format adapted from Pellegrino et al. (2001. p. 52).
Teacher survey of maker lab impact on students' thinking skills. Lab facilitators were asked the
same questions; however, the unidentified/GATE component was removed.
Q1 Welcome to the research study!

We are interested in understanding the impact that a facilitated makerspace lab has on students
along with the critical thinking and creative thinking of 8- to 11-year-old students. You will be
presented with information relevant to understanding the impact that a facilitated makerspace lab
has on learning and the critical thinking and creative thinking of 8- to 11-year-old students and
asked to answer some questions about it. Please be assured that your responses will be kept
completely confidential.

The study should take you around 30–40 minutes to complete. Your participation in this research
is voluntary. You have the right to withdraw at any point during the study, for any reason, and
without any prejudice. If you would like to contact the Principal Investigator in the study to
discuss this research, please email Gary Saunders at glsaunde@usc.edu.

By clicking the button below, you acknowledge that your participation in the study is voluntary,
you are 18 years of age, and that you are aware that you may choose to terminate your
participation in the study at any time and for any reason.

Please note that this survey will be best displayed on a laptop or desktop computer. Some
features may be less compatible for use on a mobile device. For more detailed information about
the study open this link: https://bit.ly/2Uhw8CW

I consent, begin the study (1)
I do not consent, I do not wish to participate (2)

Q40 What is your name? (Demographics)

Q41 What is the name of your institution? (Demographics)

Q42 What is your email? (Demographics)
313

Q4 What is your ethnicity? (Demographics)
o African American (1)
o Latinx (2)
o Asian (3)
o Caucasian (4)
o Pacific Islander (5)
o Filipino (6)
o decline to answer (7)
o Other (8) ________________________________________________

Q43 How many students are in your class? (Demographics)

Q5 How many years have you been working with elementary students? (Demographics)
o 1–2 (1)
o 3–5 (2)
o 6–9 (3)
o 10–15 (4)
o 16–20 (5)
o 21–30 (6)
o 31 or more (7)

Q35 I am a… (Demographics)
▢ Classroom teacher (1)
▢ Maker lab/space facilitator (2)
▢ Administrator (3)

Q37 If applicable: How many years have you been a lab facilitator? (Demographics)
o 1–2 (1)
o 3–5 (2)
o 6–9 (3)
o 10–15 (4)
o 16–20 (5)
o 21–30 (6)
o 31 or more (7)
o N/A (8)

Q38 If applicable: How many years have you been an administrator? (Demographics)
o 1–2 (1)
o 3–5 (2)
o 6–9 (3)
314

o 10–15 (4)
o 16–20 (5)
o 21–30 (6)
o 31 or more (7)
o N/A (8)

Q7 At what level is your expertise working with the needs of gifted students. (Demographics –
expertise)
o None (1)
o Little (2)
o Moderate (3)
o Significant (4)
o Expert (5)

Q8 How long have you worked with 8–11 year olds? (Demographics)
Not Applicable

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

Number of years ()

Q13 On a scale of 1–5 please rate how important you believe a maker/design/innovation–
space/lab is to the learning, future career and/or entrepreneurial opportunities of your students.
(Organization Management – Desire, Sustain)
o Not at all important (1)
o Slightly important (2)
o Moderately important (3)
o Very important (4)
o Extremely important (5)

Q27 The makeup of the students that I work with is… (Demographics)
o Primarily identified gifted (1)
o Primarily non-identified gifted (2)
o Heterogeneously combined identified and non-identified gifted (3)
o N/A or I do not know (4)

Q15 Below you will be asked to respond to prompts that are posted two times. The first prompt
relates to your students who are not identified as gifted (“non-identified gifted”). These students
may or may not be gifted, but they have not yet been identified via a process. Each prompt will
315

be followed by a duplicate prompt related to your students who have been identified as gifted
(“identified gifted”). If you do not have students in either one of those two category options
please indicate N/A (not applicable) for those prompts.

Q10 You will be asked to respond to the following prompt by ranking from 1–5. In scaling the
following prompts, please consider the majority of the students who are non-identified gifted.
The scales are from 1–5 with 1 being the lowest of the attributes/constructs and 5 being the
highest. Please answer N/A only if you do not have that identified subgroup population (“non-
identified gifted”/“identified gifted”) of students.
Q11 Cognitive load is the total amount of mental activity imposed on working memory. It is
reduced vs increased (respectively) by providing: multiple strategies vs. few strategies
high guidance such as examples and models vs. low guidance, pure discovery Access to
prior knowledge vs. high amounts of new knowledge highly organized vs. minimal
organization (motivation, cognitive load)
Very low 1 (1) Low 2 (2) Average 3 (3) High 4 (4) Very high 5 (5) N/A
(6)
In general, the cognitive load during the lab tasks and activities for non-identified gifted students
was … (1) (motivation, cognitive load)

Q39
Very low 1 Low 2 Average 3 High 4 Very high 5 N/A
In general, the cognitive load during the lab tasks and activities for identified gifted students was
… (1) (motivation, cognitive load)

Q16
Negative 1 Somewhat negative 2 Neutral 3 Positive 4 Very positive 5 N/A
The non-identified gifted students demonstrate mostly __________ emotions about the tasks and
learning projects in the lab. (1) (Socio-emotional (agency); motivation: Emotion,
beliefs/self-efficacy; Climate: nature of work; Philosophy: desire growth and development)

Q17
Negative 1 Somewhat negative 2 Neutral 3 Positive 4 Very positive 5 N/A
The identified gifted students demonstrate mostly __________ emotions about the tasks and
learning projects in the lab. (1) (Socio-emotional (agency); motivation: Emotion,
beliefs/self-efficacy; Climate: nature of work; Philosophy: desire growth and development)

Q12
Please continue with the following prompts that relate to student learning for non-identified
gifted students. Please answer n/a only if you do not have this population of students:
Never 1 Seldom 2 Sometimes 3 Most of the time 4 Always 5 N/A
316

The students find personal value (interesting/important/useful) in the lab activities and work hard
to accomplish their tasks ... (1) (motivation: Interest/value)
The students believe that their hard work pays off with increased effort at accomplishing the
tasks in the lab ... (2) (motivation: Beliefs/self-efficacy)
Based on their effort put forth, the students believe that their success or failure to accomplish
tasks depend on their effort. They work harder to learn and accomplish tasks when they attribute
their success or failure to effort ... (3) (motivation: Attribution)
The students set goals to succeed and accomplish their tasks, so they are purposeful and
disciplined to work harder to learn ... (4) (motivation: Goals)
The students view the adult(s) and peers as partners in learning, so they work harder to learn and
accomplish their tasks ... (5) (motivation: Partnership)
The students demonstrate self-regulation (evidence of metacognition, reflection, and positive
response to feedback) in the space as evidenced through a design process that defines the task,
plans, sets goals, engages in the process and evaluates results ... (6) (motivation: Self-
regulation)

Q18
Please continue with the following prompts that relate to student learning for identified gifted
students Please answer n/a only if you do not have this population of students:
Never 1 Seldom 2 Sometimes 3 Most of the time 4 Always 5 N/A
The students find personal value (interesting/important/useful) in the lab activities and work hard
to accomplish their tasks…. (1) (motivation: Interest/value)
The students believe that their hard work pays off with increased effort at accomplishing the
tasks in the lab ... (2) (motivation: Beliefs/self-efficacy)
Based on their effort put forth, the students believe that their success or failure to accomplish
tasks depend on their effort. They work harder to learn and accomplish tasks when they attribute
their success or failure to effort … (3) (motivation: Attribution)
The students set goals to succeed and accomplish their tasks, so they are purposeful and
disciplined to work harder to learn… (4) (motivation: Goals)
The students view the adult(s) and peers as partners in learning, so they work harder to learn and
accomplish their tasks ... (5) (motivation: Partnership)
The students demonstrate self-regulation (evidence of metacognition, reflection and positive
response to feedback) in the space as evidenced through a design process that defines the task,
plans, sets goals, engages in the process and evaluates results… (6) (motivation: Self-
regulation)

Q19 Please continue with the following prompts that relate to critical thinking for non-identified
gifted students. Please answer n/a only if you do not have this population of students:
Never 1 Seldom 2 Sometimes 3 Most of the time 4 Always 5 N/A
317

The students were able to identify a central problem or central question to solve in the context of
various scenarios and/or problems… (1) [CT: Issue]
Students were able to explain the purpose or reason behind and their actions or outcomes. (2)
[CT: Purpose]
Students are able to recognize and identify other participants’ perspectives (3) [CT: Point of
view]
Students are able to identify the underlying beliefs that shape their actions and judgments (4)
[CT: Assumptions]
Students are able to identify relevant evidence in order to make effective inferences or
conclusions (5) [CT: Evidence]
Students develop a strategy to organize evidence to determine most likely conclusions and
possible alternative conclusions (6) [CT: Inference]
Students use observation, reasoning, and reflection to make judgments (7) [CT: Calculated
judgment]
Students determine what is likely to happen next based on their possible choices on a task (8)
[CT: Implication]
Students are able to communicate the underlying concept of a task (such as structure) through
means such as modeling or categorization. (9) [CT: Concept]
Students classify information, clarify its meaning and decode its significance (10) [CT:
Interpretation]
Students examine ideas to assess claims and arguments (11) [CT: Analysis]
Students present and justify arguments (12) [CT: Explanation]

Q20 Please continue with the following prompts that relate to student critical thinking for
identified gifted students. Please answer n/a only if you do not have this population of students:
Never 1 Seldom 2 Sometimes 3 Most of the time 4 Always 5 N/A
The students were able to identify a central problem or central question to solve in the context of
various scenarios and/or problems… (1) [CT: Issue]
Students were able to explain the purpose or reason behind and their actions or outcomes. (2)
[CT: Purpose]
Students are able to recognize and identify other participants’ perspectives (3) [CT: Point of
view]
Students are able to identify the underlying beliefs that shape their actions and judgments (4)
[CT: Assumptions]
Students are able to identify relevant evidence in order to make effective inferences or
conclusions (5) [CT: Evidence]
Students develop a strategy to organize evidence to determine most likely conclusions and
possible alternative conclusions (6) [CT: Inference]
Students use observation, reasoning, and reflection to make judgments (7) [CT: Calculated
judgment]
318

Students determine what is likely to happen next based on their possible choices on a task (8)
[CT: Implication]
Students are able to communicate the underlying concept of a task (such as structure) through
means such as modeling or categorization. (9) [CT: Concept]
Students classify information, clarify its meaning and decode its significance (10) [CT:
Interpretation]
Students examine ideas to assess claims and arguments (11) [CT: Analysis]
Students present and justify arguments (12) [CT: Explanation]

Q21 In general, what level of critical thinking was demonstrated by students in the lab based on
the following definition:

critical thinking involves both cognitive and metacognitive processes that are purposeful and
goal-directed. It is a complex skill made up of calculated, disciplined, judgment generated by
observation, reflection, and reasoning, resulting in conceptualization, problem-solving and self-
managing judgment, that is accomplished through inquiry, interpretation, reasoning, inference,
followed by elaboration on how that judgment is made.
It informs one’s worldview. critical thinking makes sense of the world by carefully examining
the thinking posited by self and others in order to clarify and improve one’s own understanding
increasing the likelihood of positive decision-making outcomes. [CT: Overall]
Very low 1 Low 2 Average 3 High 4 Very High 5 N/A
Non-identified gifted (1)
Identified gifted (2)

Q22 Please continue with the following prompts that relate to creative thinking for non-identified
gifted students. Please answer n/a only if you do not have this population of students (CreaT
norm-referenced):
Never 1 Seldom 2 Sometimes 3 Most of the time 4 Always 5 N/A 6
The students produce a large number of ideas and/or possibilities for a project. (1) [CreaT:
Fluency]
Students come up with unique problem-solving or design ideas, outside of the obvious or
commonplace, which may be original or build on another’s idea (2) [CreaT: Originality]
Students are able to shift from one approach to another or use a variety of problem-solving or
design strategies–the opposite of rigid thinking habits (3) [CreaT: Flexibility]
Student come up with unique but appropriate labels or titles for their projects/designs (4) [CreaT:
Abstractness of titles]
Students exhibit detailed imagination on original ideas and/or add onto original ideas with
significant improvement (5) [CreaT: Elaboration]
Students create in ways that meet a need or adds value to the lives of others (6) [CreaT:
Usefulness]
319

Students resist jumping to conclusions before thinking through all available information and
possible outcomes to choices. (7) [CreaT: Resistance to premature closure]

Q23 Please continue with the following prompts that relate to creative thinking for identified
gifted students. Please answer n/a only if you do not have this population of students (CreaT
norm-referenced):
Never 1 Seldom 2 Sometimes 3 Most of the time 4 Always 5 N/A
The students produce a large number of ideas and/or possibilities for a project. (1) [CreaT:
Fluency]
Students come up with unique problem-solving or design ideas, outside of the obvious or
commonplace, which may be original or build on another’s idea (2) [CreaT: Originality]
Students are able to shift from one approach to another or use a variety of problem-solving or
design strategies–the opposite of rigid thinking habits (3) [CreaT: Flexibility]
Student come up with unique but appropriate labels or titles for their projects/designs (4) [CreaT:
Abstractness of titles]
Students exhibit detailed imagination on original ideas and/or add onto original ideas with
significant improvement (5) [CreaT: Elaboration]
Students create in ways that meet a need or adds value to the lives of others (6) [CreaT:
Usefulness]
Students resist jumping to conclusions before thinking through all available information and
possible outcomes to choices. (7) [CreaT: Resistance to premature closure]

Q24 Please continue with the following prompts that relate to creative thinking. Please consider
all of your students in general as you mark the score to the prompts [CreaT criterion-referenced]
Never 1 Seldom 2 Sometimes 3 Most of the time 4 Always 5 N/A
Synthesizing incomplete models, materials, or drawings productively (1)
Combining lines or circles aesthetically (2)
Extending or breaking boundaries (3)
Fantasy (4)
Emotional expressiveness (5)
Humor (6)
Colorfulness of projects or drawings (7)
Lavishness of projects or drawings (8)
Expressiveness of project titles (9)
Unusual visualization. (10)

Q25 In general, what level of creative thinking (CreaT) was demonstrated by students in the lab
based on the following definition:

320

Creativity is the interactions among imagination, cognitive presence, innovation, volition,
aptitude, process, domain engagement, and environment by which an individual or group follows
the creative process to produce an accepted product that is both novel, did not exist before in the
same form, and useful as defined within a personal or social context.

It is originality times appropriateness where context establishes the criteria for what counts as
original and task-appropriate and may be an evaluation of one’s entire career and entire body of
work which evaluates the entire body of work against other great contributors and decides where
one fits in.

It includes fluency (quantity of ideas), flexibility (different types of ideas), elaboration (building
upon ideas), and originality (uniqueness of ideas). It is a process of becoming sensitive to
problems, deficiencies, gaps in knowledge, missing elements, and so on; identifying the
difficulty; searching for solutions, making guesses, or formulating hypotheses about deficiencies
(CreaT overall)
Very low 1 (1) Low 2 (2) Average 3 (3) High 4 (4) Very high 5 (5) N/A (6)
Non-identified gifted students (1)
Identified gifted students (2)

Q26 The following are open-ended prompts/questions that are designed to tap into your own
expertise as an educator at observing and recognizing your students’ learning as evidenced by
actions, discussion, writing, designing, building, etc.
Please respond to the prompts and questions below as they relate to your students' evidence of
learning and thinking skills (critical thinking and creative thinking). Please identify the context in
which you notice the descriptors. For example, you observed the student in the lab, in the
classroom, or in an informal setting. Note that it is possible that none of the students under your
observation demonstrated any of the descriptors in the questions below. If this is the case, please
state that.

Q28 Describe how one or more students used inquiry and reasoning, including flaws in another’s
reasoning, to calculate and make judgment(s) that resulted in specific problem-solving. [CT:
Overall, calculated judgment, problem-solving, evidence, inference]

Q29 How did you observe one or more students use observation and communication to
conceptualize, analyze, or synthesize information? [CT: Concept, implication, inference]

Q30 Describe how one or more students came up with original, organized, imaginative ways to
think about the surrounding world in order to make something innovative or novel (Fluency,
originality, abstractness of titles).
321

Q31 How did you observe one or more students use a process of becoming sensitive to problems
and deficiencies to formulate, test and retest hypotheses to problem-solve and communicate the
result(s)? [CreaT: Fluency, elaboration, Resistance to Closure; CT: Implication]

Q32 The following two questions relate to how motivation relates to learning and thinking skills
development based on the following definition:

Motivation: Demonstrating an interest or belief in something that drives the person’s self-
regulation and confidence to work individually or collaboratively toward a successful goal or
objective. (Mayer, 2011)

Q33 In what ways did you see a student(s) demonstrate the internal will to make a continuous
effort to accomplish a goal (motivation: Goals)?

Q34 How did you see a student(s) work hard on a project and/or process because he/she–choose
any one or multiples of the following to describe motivation: a. Enjoy and show interest in their
work (interest)? b. Believed that he/she was good at the work? (beliefs) c. Attributed success or
failure to his/her effort? (attributions) d. Demonstrated a goal to master the work? (goals) e.
Viewed a classmate or adult as a learning partner? (partnership)

Q44 Consider the open-ended questions you just answered. Have there been opportunities for
your students to continue to “make” in the COVID-19 era? If so, what can you add to your
observations of how critical thinking, creative thinking and motivation are fostered in this
environment?

Administrator survey of maker lab impact on students' thinking skills

The administrators were asked the same questions as the Lab Facilitators in addition to the
following:

Q26 The following are open-ended prompts/questions that are designed to tap into your own
expertise as an administrator to be able to promote the value and priority of your lab.
Please respond to the prompts and questions below as they relate to developing and/or
maintaining the lab at your school site.

Q43 What were some of the most significant moves/actions that you made as the school leaders
to develop and establish the lab at your school? Please include aspects of change management
that promoted “buy-in” by the stakeholders. (Organization Management; Primarily Pre-launch
and Launch)

322

Examples: We established an ad hoc committee of teachers and parents who explored options by
visiting other labs at school sites and interviewed third party vendors to establish partnerships.
We established budget priorities from our annual budget development. We established
fundraising opportunities that included grants and increased excitement and buy-in from our
stakeholders and community.

Q45 What evidence have you gathered that demonstrates the success or struggles incorporating
the lab at your school? (Organization Management; Primarily Launch (Resistance, Resources),
Post-Launch)

Examples: Parent feedback that the students are excited about attending the lab ... Increased test
scores ... Teachers have integrated the model into a standards mastery approach.

Q44 What were some of the most significant moves/actions that you made as the school leader to
maintain and promote the lab at your school? Please include aspects of change management that
promoted “buy-in” by the stakeholders. (Organization Change; Primarily: Post-launch, Sustain)

Examples: We promote our successes on social media. We continue to fundraise. We partner
with a third party vendor. We hired a lab facilitator to partner with the teachers on
strategy/activity development. We provide professional development for our teachers, parents
and support staff. We incorporate __________ curriculum.

Q47 Consider the open-ended questions you just answered. Have there been opportunities for
your students to continue to “make” in the COVID-19 era? If so, what can you add to your
observations of how critical thinking, creative thinking and motivation are fostered in this
environment?

323

Appendix C: Interview Questions
Administrator Interview Questions
1. Can you share overall experiences about your school’s maker lab and learning?
2. What do you believe the maker lab does for the students …?
3. Overall successes?
4. Overall challenges; were they about resources/worthiness/human resource ability?
5. Before or during the process of establishing and running it, where did you see that
stakeholders became aware/{maintained awareness} of the lab space was needed?
(Awareness)? Students? How easy/hard was it to move forward?
6. Who and how did you see stakeholders show motivation or advocate to support or
participate in the process? Who and how was it opposed? (Desire)
7. Who and how did stakeholders build their capacity to be part of the change process?
What were some of the skills that they learned to be able to support the process? What
were some of the gaps in knowing how to move forward or sustain? Any frameworks,
rubrics or similar that demonstrated evidence? (Knowledge)
8. Who and how did stakeholders build their ability to implement the maker space/lab ideas
and activities? What stood in the way of implementing the lab/space? (Ability)
9. What was your role and if there were other roles in sustaining the maker process? Was
there anything about your organization’s structure that stood in the way of reinforcing the
progress? marketing? newsletters? media? (Reinforcement)
10. What impact did maker lab have on social-emotional aspects of students? (Socio-
emotional; motivation: Emotion)
11. What were the top 3 aspects to success? (Organization Change)
12. What were the top 3 inhibitors to success? (Organization Change)
13. How does it build content areas? (Project Management: Design, Implementation)
14. Did you see any thinking skills arise out of the process? (CT, CreaT, Organization
Change: Mission, Reinforcement)
15. Did you see any lifelong skills come out of the process for adults or students? e.g
teamwork, thinking skills, life skill (CT, CreaT, motivation, Organization Change:
Mission: Project Management, Support and Reward, Sustain)

Teacher/Lab Facilitator Interview Questions:
1. What group size works best in the lab? (Launch, Post-launch, Ability; Teacher Move:
Grouping)
2. What has emerged/what kind of making has taken place over COVID closures? (Post-
Launch, Sustain, maker mindset, grit)
3. How do you communicate what your style is (casual vs. formal)? (Motivation:
Partnership)
4. How did you observe humor develop in the lab? Anyone in particular? (CreaT: Humor)
5. Did students come up with hypotheticals outside of scenarios they were working on?
(CT: Implication)
6. Was there evidence that students took the project to another level? (How would it be
different if…?) [CT: Implication]
7. What certifications do you hold? (Demographics: Expertise)
324

8. How have students verbalized what the project’s meaningfulness is (Hira & Hynes,
2018)? (Constructionist, maker mindset, motivation: Interest, emotions; CreaT:
Abstractness/expressiveness of Titles; CT: Inference; Philosophy: Relationship between
technology and social interaction; Culture: Mission)
9. For GATE students, were there changes in how they were paired? (GATE: socio-
emotional)
10. How did the students demonstrate self-regulation ... confidence? (Motivation:
Beliefs/self-efficacy, maker mindset: Autonomy; motivation: Self-regulation)
11. What long-term impact may the maker experiences have? (Organization Change: Pre-
launch (Desire) Sustain; skills)
12. How is GATE identification determined? (Demographics)
13. What specific strategies were used to promote creativity? (Graphic organizers, etc.)
[Primary: CreaT: Strategies, fluency, Secondary: Synthesis of incomplete figures, internal
visualization, richness of imagery]

Follow-up Interview Questions:

Hello and thank you for taking a few extra minutes for a couple for follow-up questions. Please
answer these in terms of your observations of students during maker activities. The purpose
behind these prompts is to determine if and why students put in the necessary work to complete a
maker activity.

These questions ask if you observe students communicate the following ideas either literally or
in the same vein as the statement. If you do observe this communication in maker activities, can
you quantify it? For example, “about 85% of my students communicate this idea about make
activities on a regular basis,” or “very few students communicate that as a reason behind their
efforts.”

Please use the box below the prompt to answer below. Did your students communicate any for
the types of the following phrases as a reason for their efforts when you were in maker activities?

1. “I like this/I don’t like this”
2. “I am good at this/I’m not good at this”
3. They believe that their success or failure on a project depends on their effort
4. “I want to learn this/I don’t want to learn this”

325

Appendix D: Observation Descriptor and Protocol
Figure D1
Model Makers’ Space Layout

326

Observation Protocol
The observer will observe and journal (Table D1) the actions, words, models, etc. of the
students and adults in the makers’ space based on the following indicators of motivation (Clark
& Estes, 2008) that contribute to the maker mindset:
1. Active choice: When someone chooses to actively pursue a goal, chosen by the learner or
someone else, they work towards the goal without procrastinating, avoiding or delaying
(initiate). Intention is not choice. The choice must be observed. (motivation: goal,
motivation: self-regulation)
2. Persistence: When someone demonstrates active pursuit of the primary goal (keep going)
in the face of distractors and less important goals. (motivation: interest, motivation: goal,
motivation: emotion, motivation: attribution)
3. Mental effort: Mental effort is required to achieve a goal. There is a balance between the
challenge of the goal and the amount of confidence the learner has in achieving the goal.
Learners who lack confidence do not apply much mental effort toward a task because
they believe they will fail. Learners who are overconfident also do not apply much
mental effort toward a task because they believe the task is too easy. In general,
confidence improves mental effort when it is not too much or too little. (Motivation:
cognitive load, motivation: goal, motivation: self-efficacy)

327

Table D1
Indicators of Motivation Journal
Active choice and pursuit of a
goal: Has the intention to
pursue a goal turned into
action?
Persistence: Have the learners
stopped or continued working
on the task in the face of
distractions?
Mental effort: Are the
learners working to develop
new knowledge? Are the
learners becoming efficient
and developing novel
solutions?
Describe how, when, who,
why…
Learners choose or don’t
choose to pursue an
activity goal
Learners persist or don’t
persist at that goal amid
distractors that may
redirect to other goals
The degree to which
learners give mental effort
toward achieving the goal
Describe how, when, who,
why…

Describe how, when, who,
why…

Note. Adapted from “The CANE Model of Motivation to Learn and to Work: A Two-stage
Process of Goal Commitment and Effort,” by R. E. Clark, 1999, Trend in corporate training, pp.
2–13. Copyright 1999 by the University of Leuven Press.
328

Table D2
Observation Rubric for Creativity
Creative thinking
subcomponent
Novice Developing Expert
Fluency Students considered
one idea.
Students considered
several ideas.
Students considered
many ideas.
Flexibility Students considered
one type of idea.
Students considered
several types of
ideas.
Students considered
many types of ideas.
Originality Student developed a
common idea that
many other
students would
have suggested
and/or replicated an
existing idea.

Student developed an
interesting idea that
several other
students would
have suggested
and/or minimally
added onto an
existing idea.
Student developed a
unique idea that few
other students
suggested and/or
substantially built
upon an existing idea
in a unique way.
Elaboration Students added
minimal details and
improvements to
their ideas.

Students added a few
details and
improvements to
their ideas.
Students added many
significant details
and improvements to
their ideas.
Usefulness Students proposed
ideas that may
meet the end-user’s
needs in certain
conditions.
Students proposed
ideas that would
meet the end-user’s
needs.
Students proposed
ideas that would
meet the end-user’s
needs and
significantly add
value to their lives.
Specific creative
strategy
Students randomly
selected and
implemented a
creative thinking
strategy, and/or
they were unable to
leverage the
strategy to improve
their ideas.
Students selected and
implemented a
creative thinking
strategy to develop
their ideas. They
explained how the
strategy supported
their creativity.
Students deliberately
selected and
implemented a
creative thinking
strategy to develop
their ideas. They
explained how the
strategy supported
their creativity.

Note. From “Measuring What Matters: Assessing Creativity, Critical Thinking, and the Design
Process,” by K. Shively, K. M. Stith, and L. D. Rubenstein, 2018, Gifted Child Today Magazine,
329

41(3), p. 151 (https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217518768361). Copyright 2018 by K. Shively, K. M.
Stith, and L. D. Rubenstein.

330

Table D3
Observation Rubric for Critical Thinking
Creative thinking
subcomponent
Novice Developing Expert
Summarizes topic or
argument
Does not organize
information,
leading to
inadequate
understanding
Inconsistently
demonstrates
ability to organize
information,
leading to
inadequate
understanding
Consistently
demonstrates
ability to organize
information,
leading to adequate
understanding
Considers previous
assumptions
Assumptions are
defined, but not
explained as
having significance
to the position
Assumptions are
defined and linked
to topic ideas, but
not clearly
explained or
elaborated upon
Assumptions are
defined and linked
to topic ideas;
student can
elaborate on
assumptions and
discuss
implications
Communicates point
of view
Does not identify
own position on the
issue
Identifies own
position on the
issue, drawing
support from
experience
Identifies own
position on the
issue, drawing
support from
experience, and
information not
available from
assigned sources
Provides evidence of
research
No evidence provided
to support
argument
Accepts evidence at
face-value, even if
incorrect,
inadequate, or
misrepresented to
support argument
Information is
gathered from
appropriate and
credible sources to
support argument
Analyzes data No analysis of a
topic. Student only
lists or defines
concepts of topic
Demonstrates ability
to analyze and
make
interpretations of
topic
Demonstrates ability
to analyze and
elaborate on
interpretations of
topic
Considers other
perspectives and
positions
No identification of
other perspectives
and positions
Identifies other
perspectives and
positions
Identifies and
assesses other
perspectives and
positions
331

Creative thinking
subcomponent
Novice Developing Expert
Draws implications Cannot explain or
testify to the
impact of new
information
Explains or testifies
to the impact of
new information
Explains the impact
of learning new
information,
making
predictions, and
generates new
ideas
Assesses conclusions No reflection of idea
evolution on
argument
development
Limited reflection of
idea evolution on
argument
development
Extensive reflection
of idea evolution
on argument
development

Note. From “Measuring What Matters: Assessing Creativity, Critical Thinking, and the Design
Process,” by K. Shively, K. M. Stith, and L. D. Rubenstein, 2018, Gifted Child Today Magazine,
41(3), p. 153 (https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217518768361). Copyright 2018 by K. Shively, K. M.
Stith, and L. D. Rubenstein.
332

Appendix E: Tables
Table E1
Interview Participants’ Elementary Experience and Demographics
Name School Role Years of
experience
Ethnicity
Allen Anvil Teacher 21–30 Scandinavian
Andrew Anvil Administrator 21–30 Caucasian
Brandy Bevel Teacher 1–2 Caucasian
Brenda Bevel Administrator 21–30 Caucasian
Cate Chisel Teacher 21–30 Asian
Connie Chisel Administrator 21–30 Hispanic
Becky Bevel/Chisel Administrator (GATE) 21–30 Hispanic
Ellen Edger Lab facilitator/ teacher 16–20 Caucasian
Evelyn Edger Teacher 10–15 Caucasian
Eden Edger Teacher 10–15 Caucasian
Esther Edger Administrator 21–30 Caucasian
Fanny Fastener Lab facilitator 3–5 Hispanic
Frieda Fastener Teacher/administrator 6–9 Caucasian

333

Table E2
Educators’ Level of Importance of Makers’ Spaces by Unidentified/GATE Classroom Makeup
and Socioeconomic Status
Level of importance Number of educators
(N = 22)
Number of educators
by classroom setting
Number of educators
by SES
Not at all important 6 He 2 L 3
PG 2 M 2
PN 1 H 1
NA 1
Slightly important 1 He 1 H 1
Very important 8 He 5
PG 1 L 2
PN 2 H 5
Extremely important 7 He 3
PG 3 M 3
NA 1 H 4

Note. Key for the makeup of the participants’ classrooms:
Non-identified/GATE Socioeconomic status
He = Heterogeneously combined identified
and non-identified gifted
L = Majority low-SES students
PG = Primarily identified gifted M = Majority a combination of low- and high-
SES students
PN = Primarily non-identified gifted H = Majority high-SES students
NA = N/A or I do not know

334

Table E3
Anvil’s Comparison of the Beginning-of-the-Year Assessments on CreaT to End-of-the-Year
Educator’s Survey of CreaT for All Student Groups
Measurement Mean
CTP verbal reasoning 81.8
CTP quantitative reasoning 69.9
Survey CreaT total 77.2
TTCT-Verbal Age (TTCT-V) 56.2
TTCT-Figural Age (TTCT-F) 62.5
Survey CreaT usefulness 76.8
TTCT 13 checklist (usefulness) 61.4
Survey CreaT elaboration 64.0
TTCT-F elaboration 25.6
Survey CreaT resistance to premature closure 73.4
TTCT-F resistance to premature closure 63.8
Survey CreaT fluency 80.0
TTCT-F fluency 69.1
TTCT-V fluency 57.2
Educator survey CreaT flexibility 75.0
TTCT-V flexibility 51.3
Survey CreaT originality 80.0
TTCT-F originality 63.4
TTCT-V originality 59.1

Note. CTP and TTCT represent national age-normed percentiles. TCT and educator survey
results are converted to percentages according to Table E4

335

Table E4
Benchmark Key to Table E3, Table E5, Table E9, Table E10, Table 11 and Table 12
Figure level
by color
CTP % Educator
survey:
Educator
survey
construct
observed
in students
in the lab:
Educator
survey
converted
to %
TTCT
%
range
TCT %
range
TCT
total
points/45
Well below
benchmark
0–39 0–1.4 Never 0–29 0–39 0–8.9 0–04
Below
benchmark
40–59 1.5–2.4 Seldom 30–49 40–59 09–22 05–10
Benchmark 60–79 2.5–3.4 Sometimes 50–69 60–79 22.1–42 11–19
Above
benchmark
80–94 3.5–4.4 Most of
the time
70–89 80–
94.9
42.1–56 20–25
Well above
benchmark
95–98 4.5–4.7 Nearly
always
90–95 95–99 56.1–69 26–31
Exceptional 99 4.6–5.0 Always 95.1–100 99.1–
100
70 32–40

336

Table E5
Anvil’s Comparison of the Beginning-of-the-Year Assessments on CT to End-of-the-Year
Educator’s Survey of CT (All Students)
Measurement Mean
CTP verbal reasoning 81.7
CTP quantitative reasoning 69.8
CT total survey 75.2
CT overall score from TCT 37.1
Survey CT issue 68.4
TCT issue 41.7
Survey CT purpose 66.8
TCT purpose 33.9
Survey CT concept 66.8
TCT concept 44.8
Survey CT PoV 68.4
TCT PoV 42.4
Survey CT assumption 60.0
TCT assumption 32.3
Survey CT evidence 68.6
TCT evidence 26.7
Survey CT inference 66.8
TCT inference 38.3
Survey CT implication 70.0
TCT implication 37.5
Survey CT interpretation 65.0
Survey CT calculated judgment 66.8
Survey CT analysis 65.0
Survey CT explanation 63.4

Table E6
Educators Survey Responses by Creativity Subcomponent and by Role With Mean and Standard Deviation for All Students
Sub-Construct/Role
Teacher
mean
Teacher
SD
Lab
facilitator
mean
Lab
facilitator
SD
*Administrator
mean
*Administrator
SD
All
educators
mean
*All
Educators
SD
CreaT total
3.98 0.770 3.57 0.667 4.27 0.983
**3.94/
***3.93
0.753
Abstractness of titles 4.00 0.816 4.00 0.577 4.00 0.756
Elaboration 3.94 0.725 3.83 0.690 3.92 0.706
Flexibility 3.83 0.618 3.33 0.535 3.71 0.624
Fluency 4.16 0.707 4.33 0.577 4.21 0.658
Originality 4.01 0.802 4.00 0.632 4.04 0.751
Resistance to premature
Closure
3.44 0.856 3.50 0.535 3.46 0.779
Usefulness 3.83 0.707 3.17 0.756 3.67 0.761
Criterion CreaT strengths 3.61

0.737 3.49
0.636

3.57 0.710

Note. 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = most of the time, 5 = always; * Administrators did not rate subcomponents; ** (all
roles equally weighted); *** (combined roles includes all subcomponents)
337
338

Table E7
Educators Survey Responses of Creativity Strengths by Subcomponent With Mean and Standard
Deviation for All Students
Subcomponent/
role
Teacher
mean
Teacher
SD
Lab
facilitator
mean
Lab
facilitator
SD
All
educators
mean
All educators
SD
Internal
visualization
3.55 0.522 3.67 0.488 3.59 0.507
Synthesis of
lines and/or
circles
3.50 0.707 3.20 0.408 3.40 0.632
Extending or
breaking
boundaries
3.64 0.924 3.50 0.535 3.59 0.795
Fantasy 3.80 0.789 3.80 0.816 3.80 0.775
Emotional
expressiveness
3.73 0.905 3.33 0.488 3.59 0.795
Humor 3.80 0.789 4.00 0.690 3.88 0.719
Colorfulness of
projects or
drawings
3.73 0.647 4.00 0.816 3.63 0.719
Richness of
imagery
3.73 0.467 3.50 0.787 3.65 0.606
Expressiveness
of project titles
3.18 0.751 3.33 0.488 3.24 0.664
Unusual
visualization
3.45 0.820 3.17 0.756 3.35 0.786

Note. minimum value = 1; maximum value = 5

339

Table E8
Educator Moves As CreaT, CT and Motivation Impact Strategies That Emerged From the Maker
Learning Data
Educator move Example Impact
Task choices Design and build a basketball hoop and
a free throw shooter to launch a ball
through the hoop! The free throw
shooter must propel the ball through
the air so it can go through the hoop
and net
“Students showcased their
knowledge in a way they that
is authentic to them and will
remember way beyond the
test” (Driller2)

Deductive approaches through
the process of maker
construction and feedback
Engagement If it's just, here's what you need to
know, or here's how to do it, watch
me, engagement is 50% at best. But
don't just tell them everything they
need to know. It's much more
engaging and it keeps the drive going
for 75% of the students. Some
students just want to be told what
they need to know. But for certain
kids they're very much that hey, just
let me figure it out on my own.
Mental mindset (purpose and
value)

Students evaluated their own
construction
Grouping “They could work alone; although we
really didn't want them to work alone
too much, there were some kiddos
who really do thrive in their own
spaces. I think we have found in
working with different groups and
different ways of mixing them in
groups of three there's something
about a group of three, that just really
has something magical to it, and
things just get done.” (Ellen)

Purposeful groups support
synthesizing ideas and goals
through the practice of CT
and CreaT skills; construct
understanding for future
design processing

Increased leadership and
mentoring

Accelerated CreaT in Students
who tested lower
Learning
guidance:
T connects geometry to construction:
S1: Here we'll go to if it is less than
90 degrees. S2: yeah less than 90
Working memory builds on
prior understanding so that
340

Educator move Example Impact
Background
knowledge
degrees. A number exactly ... like
somebody's gonna be 80 ... 60 It's
gonna be any. S1: We're gonna do a
catapult. S3: We're gonna put how
much you get on top. S1 it's 90, so
anything less than 90 T: Okay, well,
This is 90. If you want half of that ...
S3: 45 T: you can make a 45 degree
angle. So, in order to do that, you're
gonna start with your 90 right? You
don't want to take your 45 if it's half
approximately. You have two so You
do the exact opposite right? You have
your 90 degree angle. GS What do
you think? T: great. So, how much is
90 and 45 together? S: 130. Hey! You
can 90 plus 45. S: Try again. T: ok,
make your connections 90 Plus 45
we're gonna have 135 degrees, and
you're 45 degrees here and then 90
will be in the middle
elaboration occurs through
CT and CreaT.

Motivation was built through
the expected value of being
able to collaboratively take
an original idea and elaborate
on it through the interpretive
process while using the
evidence from history and
background knowledge to
keep the product focused on
factual, knowledge-based
results.
Learning
guidance:
check for
understanding
Teacher asked the students (after the
maker session) “what one element did
I eliminate so you have to figure out
missing information?” GS answers,
“the Requirements” [of the design]
Teacher: Eventually you will have a
strap of approval so ask yourself,
“How well did you understand?”
(most students give a thumbs up).
Ss critically reflect on their
understanding of the task and
their ability and success with
the process

Reduces constraints of mental
effort
Learning
guidance: hook
(buy-in and
motivation)
“Ozobots with colored markers. The
Ozobots can follow different color
lines to do different things. However,
this can become really boring really
quickly for older students and I felt it
didn't really teach them too much
about robotics or coding. Instead, I
created some small maze mats for the
Ozobots and introduced the students
to Ozoblockly, which is a block code
editor to create code to run on the
Ozobot to run the maze.” (Chisel1)
Buy-in and engagement. Much
deeper learning.

“These aren't necessarily
tangible things we can hold
in our hands, but they
required creativity, digital
materials and tech, attention
to detail, and a final
product.” (Driller2)
341

Educator move Example Impact
Learning
guidance:
suggestions
and questions
“We posed open-ended questions to
them with no right or wrong answer,
but it was going to need validation
within their research. It could be
opinion based, but they needed to
have the reasoning behind their
opinion listed out first, and then have
a discussion.” (Fanny)
Build confidence and
emphasize internal
motivation

Improves contextualization and
situational awareness in
problem-solving

May temporarily decrease
motivation when negative
Learning
guidance:
transfer of
knowledge
“Literacy is developed through
journaling; so, they will oftentimes,
start something in the art lab or in
their art journal and then carry that
into the design lab, and then do the
building and the design lab. And they
transferred knowledge between the art
lab, the science lab, the design lab and
the robotics lab as a way to explore
their projects.” (Brenda)
Increase in discipline-specific
language

Increased ability in content area
skills such as engineering,
art, architecture, and practical
life skills

Content knowledge is crucial to
effective CT
Collaboration (Students begin asking questions of
each other and answering each other's
questions) S1: for me to enter and do
I answer the paper? Or is it like a
group answers the paper where S1:
you only have one product? So,
there's only one sheet. S2: I'm
wondering what are you supposed to
do on the scoring side? So, do you
write down what you didn't get? S1:
Um I think you're supposed to write
certain things that you think are
important and how much the points
will be. Let's say you're drawing in
class, bedroom, then, you basically
have a scoring sheet for the bedroom.
Like how important is the bed going
to be? S2: I don't think you Come up
with your own and S3: So, what it
says under the letters is there six?
Those are the elements.
Ss use collaboration to build
CT and CreaT through peer
questioning and discussion.
Connects to real-life project
management

When students have a viable,
committed learning partner,
they are more easily engaged
in learning experiences that
may be hard or unfamiliar.

342

Educator move Example Impact
Safe space:
partnership
The partnership between the teacher and
the student helped the teacher to
identify the need for the cardboard
notch to be adjusted and by how
much. The S is able to correct the
depth of the notch so that the walls
stand up.
Teacher was able to personalize
suggestions and questions
that boosted S analysis,
elaboration, and divergent
thinking

Increased sense of purpose,
self-efficacy, and
perseverance
Safe space:
relinquish
power
But if you just stop standing at the front
of the room and talking you can allow
the kids to discover it on their own.
And maybe it'll be more fun that way.
Ss build on life skills of
executive function through
analysis, reasoning,
elaboration, and original
ideas
Variety and
choice
“We give them options where there
might be student choice. This
particular student does not believe in
global warming and sees it as a hoax
perpetrated by liberals. Thus, he
initially refused to work on the
project. However, I knew he had a
deep and abiding love of learning
about animals, so we approached the
project from a different angle, and he
chose to focus his learning on a
specific endangered species.” (Eden)
Ss were motivated to apply
CreaT and CT because they
chose the context

Increased self-motivation, CT
and CreaT because students
do these activities because
they want to, not because
they have to.
Positive and
negative
consequences
(includes
competition)
We have had about 1/4 of our students
take us up on these challenges. It is
apparent that self-motivation, critical
thinking, and creativity are strongly at
play in these enrichment activities
because students are at home, alone
with family and do these activities
because they want to, not because
they have to.
Developing agency. People
who can analyze situations
and determine a course of
action without being told
what to do.

Competition (task) focused on
product comparative success
may decrease motivation and
CreaT

Challenge/competition tasks
may threaten students'
efficacy, and the importance
of a task is more relevant to
motivation than is its
343

Educator move Example Impact
challenge. (Schweinle et al.,
2006)
Skill-building Teacher holds up the accordion walls to
the camera. She is explicit about
pointing to where the notches should
be joined in order to extend the walls
while maintaining the structure.
Students used mental effort to
observe to internalize the
information for their own
construction

Increased self-efficacy and
learning for learning’s sake
(Schweinle et al., 2006)
Safe space:
physical safety
“Especially with the tools. We have
chop saws and jig saws and drills
which can harm you and can be
horribly dangerous if they're used
wrong. So, it's important that the kids
are really invested in their own safety,
and they're invested in the project and
continuing the project because a
bored kid is a dangerous kid. They're
gonna start experimenting in ways
that they're not supposed to
experiment.” (Fanny)
Physical safety reduced
cognitive load to free up
CreaT and CT

Safety increases motivation to
encounter new tools,
materials, and construction
processes
Safe space:
social-
emotional
activities
“We take them outside and do different
obstacle courses … focused on social
and emotional kind of learning in
those opportunities, or we might
come up with an activity that is more
comprehensive so for example one of
those days might be Dot Day … so
they see us collaborate and execute
that individually, but also
collectively.” (Ellen)
Promoted emotional safety to
express CreaT and CT
through responsible and
caring decisions

Room setup The makers’ spaces were set up with
accessibility to tools, materials, and
workstations against walls and in the
middle of the room. Tables were
situated to leave open floor
workspaces.
Room arrangements promoted
the collaboration and
movement to be able to
utilize variety and interests
that required CreaT and CT
to succeed
Organization The team's filled out math game
organizer states that the math topic is
Increased self-regulation

344

Educator move Example Impact
multiplication and division. The
materials used for this task are paper,
cardboard, crayons, markers, glue,
yarn, scissors. The directions are:
"roll a dice and on whatever problem
[you land] answer the problem.”
Metacognition and self-
regulation (beliefs and self-
efficacy)

May have a positive impact on
motivation, especially when
it increases autonomy
(Domen et al., 2020)

Note. Adapted from “Scientific research on how to teach Critical Thinking Contradicts
Education trends,” https://hechingerreport.org/scientific-research-on-how-to-teach-critical-
thinking-contradicts-education-trends/. Copyright 2021 by Jill Barshay; “Differentiated need
support by teachers: Student‐specific provision of autonomy and structure and relations with
student motivation,” by J. Domen, L. Hornstra, D. Weijers, I. van der Veen, and T. Peetsma,
2020, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 403–423. Copyright 2019 by J. Domen,
L. Hornstra, D. Weijers, I. van der Veen, and T. Peetsma; “Show & tell: A video column/why do
students disengage?” by D. B. Fisher, and N. Frey, 2021, Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development. Copyright 2021 by D. B. Fisher, and N. Frey; “Niemi: CASEL Is
Updating the Most Widely Recognized Definition of Social-Emotional Learning. Here's Why,”
by K. Niemi, 2020, The74. Copyright 2020 by Karen Niemi; “10 Ways Competitions Enhance
Learning: Institute of Competition Sciences,” by J. Neubert, 2016, Copyright 2021 Institute of
Competition Sciences; “Striking the Right Balance: Students’ Motivation and Affect in
Elementary Mathematics,” by A. Schweinle, D. K. Meyer, and J. C. Turner, 2006. The Journal
of Educational Research, 99(5), 271–294. Copyright 2006 by Heldref Publications;
“Fundamentals of SEL,” https://casel.org/what-is-sel/. Copyright 2021 by Collaborative for
Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning; Transformative Classroom Management (pp. 127–
345

142) by J. Shindler, Jossey-Bass Teacher. Copyright 2010 by John Shindler; “Is competition an
effective classroom tool for the gifted student?” by C. Cropper, 1998, Gifted Child Today
Magazine, 21(3), 28–31. Copyright 1998 by Carolyn Cropper.

346

Table E9
Anvil’s Comparison of the Beginning-of-the-Year Assessments on CreaT to End-of-the-Year
Educator’s Survey of CreatT (Unidentified GATE Students)
Measurement Mean
CTP verbal reasoning 74.59
CTP quantitative reasoning 61.50
Educator survey CreaT total 73.40
TTCT-V 61.13
TTCT-F 59.21
Educator survey CreaT usefulness 60.00
TTCT 13 checklist usefulness 60.42
Educator survey CreaT elaboration 66.70
TTCT-F elaboration 24.67
Educator survey CreaT resistance to premature closure 53.40
TTCT-F resistance to premature closure 60.25
Educator survey CreaT fluency 73.40
TTCT-F fluency 65.00
TTCT-V fluency 62.21
Educator survey CreaT flexibility 66.70
TTCT-V flexibility 55.38
Educator survey CreaT originality 73.40
TTCT-F originality 59.04
TTCT-V originality 64.08
TTCT-F abstract titles 60.00
TTCT-F abstract titles 63.08

Note. CTP and TTCT represent national age-normed percentiles. TCT and educator survey
results converted to percent.

347

Table E10
Anvil’s Comparison of the Beginning-of-the-Year Assessments on CT to End-of-the-Year
Educator’s Survey of CT for Unidentified Students
Student number Mean
CTP verbal reasoning 74.59
CTP quantitative reasoning 61.50
CT total educator survey 72.20
CT overall score from the TCT 33.62
Educator survey CT issue 66.67
TCT issue 34.07
Educator survey CT purpose 66.67
TCT purpose 30.43
Educator survey CT concept 66.67
TCT concept 44.35
Educator survey CT PoV 66.67
TCT PoV 41.31
Educator survey CT assumption 66.67
TCT assumption 30.43
Educator survey CT evidence 73.40
TCT evidence 21.75
Educator survey CT inference 66.67
TCT inference 37.68
Educator survey CT implication 66.67
TCT implication 29.57
Educator survey CT interpretation 65.00
Educator survey CT calculated judgment 73.40
Educator survey CT analysis 60.00
Educator survey CT explanation 53.40

348

Table E11
Anvil’s Comparison of the Beginning-of-the-Year Assessments on CreaT to End-of-the-Year
Educator’s Survey of CreaT for GATE Students
Student number Mean
CTP verbal reasoning 96.09
CTP quantitative reasoning 86.64
Educator survey CreaT total 95.20
TTCT-V 44.20
TTCT-F 70.50
Educator survey CreaT usefulness 86.60
TTCT 13 checklist (usefulness) 63.90
Educator survey CreaT elaboration 86.60
TTCT-F elaboration 27.70
Educator survey CreaT resistance to premature closure 80.00
TTCT-F resistance to premature closure 72.40
Educator survey CreaT fluency 86.60
TTCT-F fluency 78.80
TTCT-V fluency 45.30
Educator survey CreaT flexibility 73.40
TTCT-V flexibility 40.60
Educator survey CreaT originality 86.60
TTCT-F originality 74.00
TTCT-V originality 47.20
Educator's survey abstract titles 80.00
TTCT-F abstract titles 63.80

Note. Key: CTP and TTCT represent national age-normed percentiles. TCT and educator survey
results converted to percent.
349

Table E12
Anvil’s Comparison of Beginning-of-the-Year Assessments on CT to End-of-the-Year Educator’s
Survey of CT (GATE Students)
Student number Mean
CTP verbal reasoning 96.09
CTP quantitative reasoning 86.64
CT total educator survey 90.0
CT overall score from the TCT 45.11
Educator survey CT issue 88.80
TCT issue 59.34
Educator survey CT purpose 80.00
TCT purpose 42.00
Educator survey CT concept 80.00
TCT concept 46.00
Educator survey CT PoV 86.60
TCT PoV 45.00
Educator survey CT assumption 93.40
TCT assumption 36.66
Educator survey CT evidence 80.00
TCT evidence 38.33
Educator survey CT inference 80.00
TCT inference 40.01
Educator survey CT implication 93.40
TCT implication 56.00
Educator survey CT interpretation 73.40
Educator survey CT calculated
Judgment
73.40
Educator survey CT analysis 80.00
Educator survey CT explanation 80.00
350

Table E13
Educators’ Perceptions of Motivation in the Maker Lab by School
School Participants
N = 22
Type of School Motivatio
n
Anvil T = 3
LF = 1
A = 1
Independent
(heterogenous)
3.98
Bevel T = 2
A = 2
Public
(heterogeneous)
4.32
Chisel T = 1
LF = 1

Public
(primarily
GATE)
3.97
Driller LF = 2
A = 1
Independent
(heterogeneous)
3.96
Edger T = 2
LF = 1
A = 2
Public (GATE
only)
4.43
Fastener T = 1
LF = 1
A = 1
Public
(heterogenous)
4.00

Note. T = Teacher; LF = Lab Facilitator; A = Administrator
1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = most of the time, 5 = always

351

Table E14
Traits of Entrepreneurially Gifted Individuals and Their Relationship to Maker Learning
Entrepreneurially gifted
trait
Description Connection to maker learning
Deadline management Ability to manage resources and
make judgments about
projects and marketing to
meet deadlines
Tasks that were time-bound,
budget-bound and
resources-bound
Leadership The ability to recognize and
direct talent; may include
self-leading and
metacognitive
Maker teams were either
assigned roles or roles are
identified during the
making; the leader
identifies talents and skills
and facilitates their
implementation (leadership
giftedness; maker
partnership)
Creativity Entrepreneurship and creative
thinking have a circular
reciprocal effect.
Fluency, flexibility,
originality, elaboration are
facilitated and fostered
through the 4Cs and the
design thinking process
(creative giftedness)
Innovative thinking Extracognitive abilities such as
intuition lead one to move an
idea forward; recognition of
experience economy
Ideas push conventional
boundaries; innovative
designs are constructed and
tested (maker confidence)
Motivation and self-
directed learning
Gifted entrepreneurs exude the
love of challenges and are
motivated to solve them
Introducing an idea and
product; then developing
the confidence to bring it to
fruition
Courage/unique vision Ability to see, understand, and
interpret in unusual ways.
Includes wisdom to learn
from mistakes
Makers were willing to
introduce and defend
fantastical ideas and
solutions that may not be
feasible or marketable in the
context of current space and
time (maker mindset)
352

Entrepreneurially gifted
trait
Description Connection to maker learning
Know how/know what High intellectual and creative
educational multimedia
technologies; psychological
processes and phenomena;
cognitive strategies
Maker learning motivated
learner develop the ability
to use CT, logic and
reasoning to code and apply
systems thinking; creative
strategies; experience
economy
Cognitive and
metacognitive processing
Psychological mechanisms that
promote the development of
human creative and
intellectual abilities,
improving an individual’s
mental potential
Ideation and effective
reflection were developed
through the iterative process
and executive function
Perseverance to succeed Gifted entrepreneurs’ do not
give up after the first failed
project(s).
Grit, growth mindset through
maker learning
Competitive/excellence/
perfection
Gifted entrepreneurs have
competitive personalities and
frequently want to be the best
(win).
Makers measured their
success against rubrics,
other teams, their prior
accomplishment—shark
tank, maker faire, cardboard
challenge
Neglect of academic
subjects
Pursuit of practical, real-life
ventures rather than
classroom academic success
Gifted makers were engrossed
in unconventional problem-
solving and authentic
design
Independent thinking Tend to follow their own rules
and thinking independently
Maker learners rejected
conventional ideas about
structure and practicality
Optimistic Belief that one’s ideas and
products can “change the
world”
Maker learners designed
structures and products that
solved large community-
and world-impacting
problems; products were
designed through a lens of
empathy to benefit an end-
user

353

Note. From “The effect of a design thinking-based maker education program on the creative
problem-solving ability of elementary school students,” by S. Lee, T. Kim, J. Kim, S. Kang, and
J. Yoon, 2019, Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education, 23(1), 73–84.
Copyright 2019 by the Korean Association of Information Education; “The Effect of
Entrepreneurial Gifted Students’ Self-directed Learning Ability on Their Creativity and the
Factors of Self-directed Learning Ability Which Distinguish High Creative Entrepreneurial
Gifted Students from Counterpart,” by M.-S. Park, M.-J. Baek, J.-H. Han, and E.-J. Yoon, 2018,
ISER 130th International Conference. In Proceedings of ISER International Conference (pp. 14–
18). Copyright 2018 by M.-S. Park, M.-J. Baek, J.-H. Han, and E.-J. Yoon; Shavinina, L. V.
(2013). The Routledge International Handbook of Innovation Education (pp. 29–33), by L. V.
Shavinina, 2013, Routledge. Copyright 2013 by Larisa V. Shavinina; “A Comparison of
Entrepreneurial Skills of Fourth-Grade Gifted and Normal Student’s in Social Studies,” by Şirin
Çetin, Şahin Çetin, M. Hüseyin, A. Serdar, and G. Derya, 2017, Türk Üstün Zeka Ve Eğitim
Dergisi, 7(2), 110–111. Copyright 2017 by Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi/Turkish Journal
of Giftedness & Education.

354

Appendix F: Codebook
Table F1
Codes and Descriptions
Name Description Files References
Adult amazement Evidence that educators and parents
are impressed, excited, and
amazed at the thinking, products,
skills, and ideas that come out of
the maker space
24 49
CON constructionist Evidence of constructionism in
practice and its impact
133 360
CON constructivist Evidence of constructivism
especially through a collaborative
process
38 90
CON maker mindset Learners frequently tinker and risk
failure in order to learn, and
innovate where problem-solving
methods, scientific inquiry, and
reflective thinking are met in
cooperative and individual
learning situations
127 656
Autonomous 21st century Ways, such as communication and
collaboration, in which the maker
process builds autonomy and
transference of learning and
content.
80 229
Endurance, reflect,
openness to adapt
Maker participants learn endurance
over time by overcoming and
trusting the process
74 160
Grit failure Students persevere through failure to
test and retest (embedded in a
growth mindset and motivation),
narrower than endurance in the
intensity of failure and
overcoming
45 97
Products useful innovative Specific, innovative useful products
(commercially/community-based)
that came out of the maker labs
46 133
355

Name Description Files References
COVID Changes and impact of the COVID
school closures
50 128
CreaT overall Evidence of creativity as a result of
the maker space based on the
Theoretical Framework definition.
CREAT vs. CreaT; CREAT: Big c
creativity is the breakthrough kind
of thinking that most people are
familiar with, but it’s relatively
rare. CreaT: Small c creativity
describes the small ideas and “a-
ha’s” that enhance and enrich our
lives — like creating a new recipe,
teaching your dog a new trick, or
coming up with a new way to
format a report for your company
is often inspired by our
surroundings
129 1385
CreaT abstractness of titles Organizing and synthesizing
processes of thinking to capture
the essence and meaningfulness of
what is important about an idea or
concept
37 67
CreaT flexibility adapt
strategies
This represents the ability to produce
a quantity of ideas and change
strategies or approaches to solve a
problem vs. (low) one who rigid
habits and low motivation
63 130
CreaT fluency (others) The number of the group’s ideas 59 130
CreaT fluency (self)
quantity of ideas
The quantity of an individual’s ideas
within a type
46 96
CreaT originality
uniqueness of ideas
Students develop a unique or
interesting idea
41 97
CreaT resistance to
premature closure
54 112
CreaT elaboration details
building upon ideas
Add significant details and
improvement to ideas
72 155
CreaT specific strategy Students deliberately choose creative
strategies to develop ideas and can
explain why they chose it
60 157
356

Name Description Files References
CreaT usefulness of ideas;
13 checklist criteria
Proposing ideas that meet the end-
user’s needs and add value to their
lives
99 345
CreaT extending breaking
boundaries
Making mental leaps beyond the
obvious and commonplace. Go
beyond the perceived limits of a
figure
5 10
CreaT fantasy Criterion: a person’s use of fantasy
imagery in responding to the tasks
2 10
CreaT internal
visualization
Criterion: ability to visualize beyond
the exteriors and pay attention to
the internal, dynamic working of
things
5 11
CreaT humor Maker space impact on student’s
humor, a creative criterion
component
9 13
CreaT colorfulness of
imagery
Ability to excite and appeals to the
senses
11 14
CreaT synthesis of
incomplete figures lines
Going beyond the norm or common
relationships of elements when
there are limitations. The person
looks for the freedom in the
limitations to create new
relationships with the elements of
lines, circles, and figures.
3 9
CreaT unusual
visualization
Seeing things in new ways as well as
old ways about a commonplace
object or situation and perceive it
in different ways
4 7
CreaT richness of imagery Criterion-referenced. the ability to
create strong sharp images in the
eye of the beholder
18 24
CreaT extending breaking
boundaries
Making mental leaps beyond the
obvious and commonplace. Go
beyond the perceived limits of a
figure
23 38
CT overall 141 1212
CT (third person)
perspectives and purpose
Ability to identify and (higher level)
assess perspectives and positions
of others
62 126
357

Name Description Files References
behind an action or
behavior
CT analyze, elaborate
inquiry and reasoning
calculate and make
judgments specific
problem-solving.
Able to analyze and explain or
elaborate (higher level) on
interpretations of a topic or idea
72 127
CT assumptions:
underlying beliefs that
guide actions and
interpretations
Assumptions linked to ideas, topics,
that lead to interpretations, may
include bias or implications
underlying beliefs that guide
actions
46 79
CT calculated judgment:
observation, analysis,
evaluation
Level of reflection of the observed
evolution of ideas and/or
arguments to develop and
synthesize to reflect and assess
conclusions. Analysis and
evaluation
70 153
CT concept and summary
underlying ideas of a
situation
Able to organize information and
underlying ideas for adequate
understanding, e.g., concept of
“competence” is there adequate
information to determine if
competence is achieved?
74 133
CT evidence used to
interpret and support a
decision
Specific information that is given or
not given in a scenario used to
support a conclusion. May include
critiquing another’s reasoning.
High-level uses credible evidence;
lower-level misrepresents or uses
inaccurate information
47 103
CT implication of outcome
or next step
Higher-level CT based on analyzing
ability and recognizing the
hypothetical beyond a scenario if
something was changed. Impact of
new information and makes new
ideas and predictions
44 102
CT inference best solutions
to a scenario
Establishes most/least likely
conclusions (current/immediate vs
future) to a scenario based on its
evidence. Inference takes
interpretation to higher level.
49 106
358

Name Description Files References
CT issue: central problem
identified
The central issue or problem in a
scenario is identified.
35 59
CT Positive outcome The positive outcome of a problem
as a result of CT
29 57
CT PoV communicated
(first person)
The student’s own perspective on
key issues is communicated based
on personal experience or (higher-
level) information from
discovered sources.
26 51
CT problem-solving General use of CT to problem-solve 36 82
Demographics Demographics of the students and/or
staff
21 38
Design process Evidence of the design process: 1
empathize and relate to the
customer 2 collect
information/research and define
the problem 3 ideate/brainstorm
and analyze, design 4 Prototype/
optimize 5 test 6
communicate/feedback 7 evaluate
and redesign to improve 8 repeat
111 252
GATE specific Data that relates primarily to gifted 48 146
Jumping in Students jump into the work without
much planning
4 6
Materials and tools Materials and tools the contributed
to the maker experience
142 428
Safety Evidence of safety used with tools
and materials
29 40
Motivation overall Evidence of motivation as a result of
the maker process and experience
based on the theoretical
framework definition.
133 1122
Motivation: attributions Effort results in success as
motivation
27 57
Motivation beliefs: self-
efficacy
A balance of perceived and actual
capability motivates
62 142
Motivation: cognitive load This impact of cognitive load on
motivation
46 94
359

Name Description Files References
Motivation: emotions The impact of emotions on
motivation
39 63
Motivation: expectancy
value
Motivation is enhanced if the learner
values the task. They either see
that it will benefit them, or they
don’t see a risk in not completing
the task.
56 98
Motivation: goals Evidence of goals: Positive (aiming
for mastery and positive
consequences) or (negative to
avoid failure) motivates students
66 166
Motivation: interest Personal value: Liking the task
motivates student to work harder
58 115
Motivation: partnership Instructor and/or peers as partners
working together as a motivation
70 185
Motivation: self-regulation Self-regulation as evidence of
motivation
45 148
Organizational
management
The overall systems and structures
that impact the school and its
progress
91 1765
Three top inhibitors Administrator identified three most
crucial obstacles to a successful
makers’ space
2 2
Three top success moves Administrator identified top three
moves to achieve a successful
makers’ space
2 2
Change management a
priori
Theoretical progress of change in the
organization to create and/or
maintain the makers’ space
39 316
1A Pre1 awareness ready In the prelaunch phase there should
be awareness of the need to
change, readiness based on morale
and track record
14 44
1B Pre2 desire analyze In the prelaunch phase desire to
support and participate in the
change emerges, resistance is
overcome, and the proposal is
analyzed to ensure the four
dimensions of climate are in place
or attainable
18 54
360

Name Description Files References
2 Launch knowledge plan During the launch phase knowledge
of how to implement the change is
built and a plan is clearly
communicated by actions with
macro (vision/mission) goals
24 67
3 Post ability support
allocate
During the post-launch phase, the
organization develops the ability
to implement the change and
overcome impediments with
support including rewards and
allocation for training and
resources
25 72
4 Sustain reinforce monitor During the sustain change phase the
organization has reinforcement to
sustain the change and resist
through monitoring and
adjustment of structural systems
such as team recreation
25 79
Change management
emergent
Themes that emerge from the data 76 409
Change lifelong skills Did the makers’ space experiences
impact lifelong benefits such as
thinking skills or future ability to
succeed in fluid environments?
28 57
Change management
(content) impact of lab
on school
Lab success and struggles of
maintaining a lab as well as on
other content areas.
29 70
Change management
establish action
Administrator actions to develop and
establish a makers’ space
9 25
Change management
maintain and promote
the lab
How does the administrator promote
and maintain the lab
15 35
Change management
marketing
Marketing as an impact on the
makers’ space success of the
change management
16 30
Change management
(content) impact of lab
on school
Lab success and struggles of
maintaining a lab as well as on
other content areas. Includes
transfer of learning between the
lab, classroom, and home
25 84
361

Name Description Files References
Change management
establish action and
partnerships
Administrator actions to develop and
establish a makers’ space
10 32
Change management
maintain and promote
the lab
How does the administrator promote
and maintain the lab
14 26
Change management
socio-emotional impact
Evidence that the makers’ space had
a socio-emotional impact on the
students and/or adults
18 46
Equity opportunity
audience
Opportunities and equity are
considered; includes an audience
in mind
34 76
Leader’s qualities Major component of Prelaunch.
Aspects and qualities of the leader
that had an impact on the change
18 127
A self-awareness Allow ambiguity in the process,
recognize what can be controlled
and what can’t, recognize how one
feels when challenged, intuitive
(hunch, future-orientation,
conceptual tendency) is more
successful than sensing (fact-
based, concrete, practical)
10 38
B Motives Leaders’ motive(s) ambitious
enough to disrupt status quo and
change it, personal goals and
organizational goals align,
promotes loyalty to the institution,
desires achievement and the
power to achieve it, not just
wanting to be liked and making
momentary decisions to achieve it.
desirable leaders are low-ego,
mature, future-visioned and seek
advice of experts, coach and
develop staff. high energy: meet
lots of people, work hours needed
to get it done, energize others
10 36
C Values Personal values align with
institutions values, be part of
developing a mission statement.
promote the shared ownership to
17 53
362

Name Description Files References
the values: competitive edge.
integrity know the external
environment (charters,
independent schools, home
school), use external environment
to compare the institutions current
course to determine if it would be
successful in five years
Project management (PM) Four aspects of project management
to complement change
management
46 213
1 PM requirements Items required to accomplish the
change such as timelines, specific
micro goals, success indicators,
physical resources
9 31
2 PM design Milestones and feedback are
designed into the program but
allow for flexibility e.g.,
milestones at 30, 60, and 90 days
27 52
3 PM implementation Putting the plan and design into
action. Stakeholders buy-in and
live out the values established
during awareness
38 84
4 PM post-implementation Reinforcement, feedback about what
did and did not work and
recognition of successful
experiences
14 46
Psychology of change The process by which a school
transforms the attitudes and
behavior of its stakeholders to
make change
35 609
Climate Four aspects of the daily aspects of
the organization (explicit) that
impact the culture
34 195
1 Nature of relationships (e.g., welcoming environment) 17 43
2 Nature of hierarchy (e.g., open voiced vs. closed voice) 21 51
3 Nature of work (e.g., daily business is casual vs.
formal)
20 41
4 Focus of support Rewards and expectations 20 60
363

Name Description Files References
Culture The organizations tacit beliefs and
core values that impact change
35 184
Mission (e.g., stakeholder-oriented foci) 27 91
Shared vision (e.g., routine vs. innovation as
evidenced by policies)
28 91
Philosophy of the
individuals and
organization
Philosophy of the individuals and
organization as evidence by its
practices
31 230
A Growth and
development
People desire growth and
development and can be creative
when they have these
opportunities.
20 65
B Interpersonal interaction People value interpersonal
interaction with peers and with
superiors
16 35
C Trust, support, and
cooperation
People need trust, support, and
cooperation to function effectively
19 54
D Technology and social
interaction
Relationship between technology
and social interaction needs, there
needs to be consideration for both
in an organization so that people
are considered as important
16 33
E Human relations Human relations is prioritized and
the organization is customer-
focused
21 43
Tipping point A la Malcolm Gladwell. The point in
which the idea and the movement
took off in a big way or failed
5 7
Room layout Layouts of rooms and the
environment that impact learning
and making
33 56
Skills development and
application
Students build skills that they then
use to create and design
9 12
So, those two pieces were
really important putting
together a process log
and actually talking to
kids about highlight your
failures,
InVivo 1 1
364

Name Description Files References
Leadership Leadership qualities emerge as a
result of the maker process
40 73
Students are working in
collaborative groups
7 11
Students had to overcome
problems
2 2
Educator move Actions by the teacher to promote
learning and thinking skills
150 1262
Educator move: Task Specific tasks that came in and out
of the maker space
117 298
Task description detailed This is an explanation by the
instructor about the objectives and
directions for completing the task
29 77
Educator move:
Engagement
The teacher’s purposeful actions that
create engagement
71 152
Educator move: grouping Intentional grouping by the teacher
in terms of number, or personality,
or ability
47 92
Educator move: learning
guidance
Techniques that the teacher uses to
move learning forward
15 33
Educator move:
background knowledge,
connections
Educators’ uses media or other
means to make connections
between Ss and the maker task
41 83
Educator move: check for
Understanding
Educators’ move to check that Ss
understand the purpose, directions,
and criteria of the maker task
39 90
Educator move: hook buy-
in and motivation
The motivation choice that the
educator utilizes to develop the
initial interest in the maker task
31 44
Educator move:
suggestions and
questions
The teacher asks questions to clarify
the thinking and the design. The
teacher may make suggestions on
next steps for the group.
49 105
Educator move: learning
guidance-transfer
Techniques that the teacher uses to
move learning forward and may
include an observation of transfer
of learning between settings such
as the makers’ space classroom
and home
25 103
365

Name Description Files References
Educator move:
collaboration
Teacher uses collaboration among
peers and others to set the stage
for the thinking skills and learning
83 177
Educator move: safe space,
partnership
Teacher’s moves to create safe
spaces to allow risk and creativity
with feedback as the stakeholders
see themselves as partners in the
learning, ties into motivation
95 271
Educator move: relinquish
power
Moves toward more student-
centered, collaborative learning in
which decisions are shared
49 92
Educator move: variety
and choice
Teachers either promote or limit
choice in product or task with
students of provide variety of
design, product in the tasks
63 148
Educator move: positive or
negative consequences
The educator utilizes rewards or
negative consequences to promote
the learning
24 50
Educator move: skill-
building
Educators build skills and
techniques in students to promote
future use and autonomy
87 222
Educator move: safety Part of skill-building includes
physical safety
13 22
Educator move: safety,
social-emotional
Social-emotional impact the maker
space has on stakeholders
59 173
That launched our project
curiosity, the art and
science of nature.
InVivo 1 1
The teachers really value
that time when their kids
go to the lab
InVivo 1 1
There is an intense
demonstration of
curiosity
InVivo 1 1
They smiled and got up on
their calves.
InVivo 1 1
They went through step by
step, the inner iteration
iterative process
InVivo 1 1
366

Name Description Files References
Too much complexity can
actually make it easier
for something to go
wrong
InVivo 1 1
Using their language skills
in science
InVivo 2 2
We definitely do a lot of
problem-based learning
InVivo 1 1
When we got to 700, it just
you've got a yacht you
don't have a speedboat
anymore and it's hard to
move
InVivo 1 1
Students showcased their
knowledge in a way they
that is authentic to them
and will remember way
beyond the test.
InVivo 1 1
Students sometimes
disagree with the ideas
and process proposed by
another student and will
articulate an alternative.
InVivo 2 2
Students was struggling InVivo 1 1
Makerspaces provide an
avenue for students to
demonstrate persistence
towards the product they
are making
InVivo 5 5
Groups needed to be self-
motivated
InVivo 1 1
I definitely see them
having a problem-
solving toolkit.
InVivo 1 1
I think of myself more as
an encyclopedia
InVivo 1 1
It makes the world bigger
and smaller for them
InVivo 1 1
367

Name Description Files References
Oh, you get to play when
you're in fifth grade
InVivo 1 1
Effective problem-solving
requires resilience
InVivo 6 6
Find the maker in your
people.~~58~58~And
then you highlight it
InVivo 1 1
Finding flaws in others
reasoning is too complex
of a concept at this age
level
InVivo 1 1
As we grew in maker
mindset, and we're
looking for authentic
audiences
InVivo 1 1
A lot of trial and error InVivo 1 3
challenged to create InVivo 3 3
A bored kid is a dangerous
kid
InVivo 1 1
CT overall 141 1212
CT (third person)
Perspectives and purpose
behind an action or
behavior
Ability to identify and (higher level)
assess perspectives and positions
of others
62 126
CT analyze, elaborate
inquiry and reasoning
calculate and make
judgments specific
problem-solving.
Able to analyze and explain or
elaborate (higher level) on
interpretations of a topic or idea
72 127
CT assumptions:
Underlying beliefs that
guide actions and
interpretations
Assumptions linked to ideas, topics,
that lead to interpretations, may
include bias or implications
underlying beliefs that guide
actions
46 79
CT calculated judgment:
observation, analysis,
evaluation
Level of reflection of the observed
evolution of ideas and/or
arguments to develop and
synthesize to reflect and assess
70 153
368

Name Description Files References
conclusions. Analysis and
evaluation
CT concept and summary
underlying ideas of a
situation
Able to organize information and
underlying ideas for adequate
understanding, e.g., concept of
“competence” is there adequate
information to determine if
competence is achieved?
74 133
CT evidence used to
interpret and support a
decision
Specific information that is given or
not given in a scenario used to
support a conclusion. May include
critiquing another’s reasoning.
High-level uses credible evidence;
lower-level misrepresents or uses
inaccurate information
47 103
369

Appendix G: Observation Descriptions
Observations were scheduled to take place over the course of two to three months.
However, the school closures due to COVID-19 limited the number of observations that I was
able to have. This had an impact on my ability to record data to make a deeper analysis of certain
subcomponents. For example, the subcomponents resistance to premature closure, implication of
design choices, and flexibility response to failures and limitations over time would have been
observed. As such, the observations have limited yet impacting data for the study. For purposes
of context, I will describe the tasks of the observations here briefly, so that context can be
established for the subsequent results for each RQ. For RQ2, the observational data of the
students at these schools were dichotomized into identified GATE students and unidentified
students. In observations, the GATE students were grouped heterogeneously into teams with
unidentified students. The groups ranged from one to six students. At Anvil there were three
educators supporting the students in the makers’ space. All three of these educators also
participated in the survey and one, Allen, participated in an interview. The maker activity was
called the Diseño Challenge. Students were given the task of drawing, mapping, and writing a
persuasive ‘sales’ letter that would convince the recipient through visuals and words that that
team's design was the finest. The teacher did not reveal to the teams up front any details about
which they were designing. The criteria details were revealed gradually, as students earned
information clue cards in which they proved that they understood the prior clue by defending
their ideas to one of the educators. The educators were essentially marshals for the theoretical
“governor” who was the intended audience for the sales pitch and the teams were designing his
estate and grounds.
370

At Bevel, the teacher assigned the March Madness challenge in which she started with
inspirational game-winning shot basketball videos to inspire students to make a hoop on a stand
with a shooter to launch a ball through the hoop. The teacher created teams of six divided in half
for a “hoop” group and the other half for a “shooter” group to make their construction and asked
them to first draw out and diagram their ideas in a journal. The maker session in the other class at
Bevel involved a challenge by the teacher to make a mathematics board game. Students had free
choice in the materials that they used for their design. The teacher facilitated a drawing design
exercise as part of their planning on a handout that she provided. The maker sessions at Fastener
were identified as virtual maker chats, which occurred during the COVID-19 closure. The task
was open and chosen by the student to build a house consisting of a kitchen, bathroom, and
bedroom. The materials (primarily cardboard, tape, hot glue, and recyclables) were gathered
from household items and constructed using tape, sewing kits, hot glue, scissors, and a canary
saw. It is important to note the materials and tools because they had an impact on the choice of
techniques and construction in the students’ problem-solving processes. The educator guided the
student to identify the architectural design and coached the student on choices in construction
techniques to best suit the student’s design ideas. This coaching approach contributed to the
CreaT, CT, and motivational impact which was described in detail in Table E8. Each session in
the observations lasted approximately 45 minutes. Each of these classes was heterogeneous,
primarily unidentified students with a smaller percentage of GATE students who were identified
to me by the T, except for the student at Fastener who was a GATE student and sometimes
supported by her mother or a sibling.
The observations that I had for the GATE student at Fastener were called maker chats
and took place in a virtual setting. The other observations of GATE-only student teams at Edger
371

were not observed by me. The observation rubric was filled out by the teachers based on overall
observations of their maker sessions. Two of those educators scored the CT and CreaT
components of the observation rubric (Appendix D) used for my observations. This was filled
out during the interview process. The rubric was explained to the educators, they were given an
opportunity to ask clarifying questions and then matched the rubric to a lesson that they
described in the interview and in some cases provided corresponding documentation including
photos of the lesson and the products as well as plans and room layout maps.
In all of these categories, gifted students, who were discussed in the observation notes,
interviews, surveys, and pre-existing data, have been identified as GATE by the respective
independent school or district through criteria. Those criteria were described in more detail in
RQ2 but included teacher recommendation and normed assessments that measured areas that
included the constructs of high achievement, reasoning, and intellectual ability. The following is
a brief description of the process and tools used in identification. At Anvil, students were
identified as gifted via normed scoring on the CTP as well as teacher recommendation. In
addition to teacher recommendation, these students were identified as gifted by scoring at the
95th percentile or higher level on either the verbal reasoning or the quantitative reasoning
sections of the CTP. The CTP was administered to a group of students typically in independent
schools that tend to have advanced curricula. It is an achievement test battery developed for the
Educational Records Bureau by Educational Testing Service, which has a significant correlation
between high scores on the verbal reasoning section and indicators of high intelligence on
common psychologist-administered IQ tests (Kaplan, 1996). It demonstrates students’ ability to
“analyze information and draw logical inferences, to recognize analogical verbal relationships,
and to generalize verbal categorical attributes … analyze mathematical concepts and principles,
372

to make generalizations, and to compare quantities mathematically” (Educational Records
Bureau, 2021, subtests, para. 2). The public-school districts (Bevel, Chisel, and Edger) used
assessments such as the NNAT and the Cognitive Abilities Test tests to identify gifted students.
These assessments, more so the NNAT, have been used as effective, but not perfect, instruments
for identifying students from various underrepresented subgroups, including English learners,
low-SES students, and students from various racial identification (Carman et al., 2018). In one of
the districts (Bevel and Chisel elementary), the assessments were part of a matrix point system
designed to promote broader identification opportunities for underserved students. The matrix
included teacher referral criteria lists, parent input, academic performance, goal-oriented scales,
along with normed assessments that included the NNAT, the Otis Lennon Scholastic
Achievement Test, and the CoGAT.

373

Appendix H: Torrance Test of Creative Thinking Manual
The composite score for the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) is comprised of
Figural and Verbal norm-referenced assessments (Table H1 and Table H2) and criterion-
referenced assessments (Table H3). The TTCT Manual described the subcomponents of
creativity (Torrance, 2008):
The TTCT Figural provides five separate assessments of creativity—fluency, originality,
the abstractness of titles, elaboration, and resistance to premature closure. After making
these assessments, the scorer looks for evidence of creative strengths, thirteen in all,
giving ratings of (+) [for 1 or 2 occurrences] or (++) [typically for three or more
occurrences]. Two composite assessments of creativity are then given, the “average”
from the five separate assessments, and the Creativity Index based upon a pooling of
results from the separate assessments along with ratings from special creative strengths.
… The TTCT Verbal provides three separate assessments of creativity, along with a
composite based upon the average of the separate assessments. … The TTCT Verbal
provides one such measure—the Average Standard Score.

374

Table H1
TTCT Norm-Referenced Figural Subcomponents
Subcomponent Description
Fluency This score is based upon the total number of relevant responses. As such, it
is perhaps one of the most critical aspects of the test. All other scores
depend in part upon the fluency score inasmuch as no subsequent scores
may be given in other dimensions unless a response is first found to be
relevant.
Originality This score is based upon the statistical infrequency and unusualness of the
response. As such it indicates whether a student produced a large number
of relatively trite, common responses (low originality) or unusual and
highly imaginative responses (high originality). Combining two or more
figures into a single image is given increased weight.
Abstractness of
titles
This score relates to the subject’s synthesizing and organizing processes of
thinking. At the highest level, there is the ability to capture the essence of
the information involved, to know what is important, and to enable the
viewer to see the picture more deeply and richly.
Elaboration The basis of this score is two underlying assumptions: the minimum primary
responses to the stimulus figure is a single response; and the imagination
and exposition of detail is a function of creative ability, appropriately
labeled elaboration.
Resistance to
premature
closure
The basis for this score is a person’s ability to keep open and delay closure
long enough to make the mental leap that makes original ideas possible.
Less creative persons tend to leap to conclusions prematurely without
considering the available information, which cuts off chances for more
powerful, original images.

Note. Adapted from Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Interpretive Manual (p. 3) by E. P.
Torrance, 2008, Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. Copyright 2018 by Scholastic Testing Service,
Inc.

375

Table H2
TTCT Norm-Referenced Figural Subcomponents
Subcomponent Description
Fluency This score reflects the subject’s ability to produce a large number of ideas
with words. Each verbal task attempts to tap a somewhat different ability
or mental process. Further clues concerning the subject’s mental
functioning may be obtained by looking at each of the subject’s responses.
Flexibility This score represents a person’s ability to produce a variety of ideas, shift
from one approach to another, or use a variety of strategies. A low score
indicates a narrow range of responses, which may be the result of rigid
thinking habits, limited knowledge and/or experience, limited intellectual
energy, and/or low motivation. Generally, an opposite interpretation of
high scores would be hypothesized. However, extremely high flexibility
scores in relation to fluency scores may characterize the person who jumps
from one approach to another and is unable to stick to one line of thinking
long enough to really develop it. A person may be quite flexible in
viewing, manipulating, and otherwise using figural elements, yet be quite
restricted in shifting approaches in dealing with words.
Originality This score represents the subject’s ability to produce ideas well beyond the
obvious, commonplace, banal, or established. A high score requires an
ability to delay gratification or to reduce tension and usually indicates a
nonconforming person with a lot of intellectual energy. Such a person is
able to make big mental leaps or “cut corners” in obtaining solutions but is
not necessarily erratic or impulsive. Anchors to interpretation can be
derived by looking at the originality score in relation to the fluency score.

Note. Adapted from Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Interpretive Manual (p. 9) by E. P.
Torrance, 2008, Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. Copyright 2018 by Scholastic Testing Service,
Inc.

The TTCT criterion-referenced subcomponents are defined (Torrance, 2008):
An added thirteen criterion-referenced measures are useful for a more complete overall
assessment. These thirteen measures, each yielding scores of (0), (1), or (2), are
376

subsequently pooled with the norm-referenced assessments to provide an overall
Creativity Index. This checklist of creative strengths consists of the following.

Table H3
TTCT Criterion-Referenced Figural Subcomponents
Subcomponent Description
Emotional expressiveness
This measures a subject’s ability to communicate feelings and emotions verbally or nonverbally
through drawings, titles, and speech of the figures in the drawings.
Storytelling articulateness
This indicates a subject’s ability to clearly and powerfully communicate an idea or tell a story by
providing some kind of environment and sufficient detail to put things in context.
Movement or action This judges a person’s perception of movement through titles and the speech and bodily posture of
figures in the drawings.
Expressiveness of titles This notes a person’s use of titles that go beyond simple description and communicate something
about the pictures that the graphic cues themselves do not express without the title.
Synthesis of incomplete
figures
The combination of two or more figures is quite rare and points out an individual whose thinking
departs from the commonplace and established, who is able to see relationships among rather
diverse and unrelated elements, and who, under restrictive conditions, utilizes whatever freedom is
allowed.
Synthesis of lines Same as incomplete figures, except combination of sets of parallel lines or combination of circles.
Unusual visualization This measure points out an individual who sees things in new ways as well as old ways and who can
return repeatedly to a commonplace object or situation and perceive it in different ways.
Internal visualization This measure indicates that a subject is able to visualize beyond exteriors and pay attention to the
internal, dynamic workings of things.
Extending or breaking
boundaries
This score suggests that a person is able to remain open long enough to permit the mind to make
mental leaps away from the obvious and commonplace and to open up or extend the boundaries or
limits imposed upon the stimulus figure.
Humor This score suggests that an individual perceives and depicts conceptual and perceptual incongruity,
unusual combinations, and surprise.
377

Subcomponent Description
Richness of imagery This score reflects a subject’s ability to create strong, sharp, distinct pictures in the mind of the
beholder.
Colorfulness of imagery This score reflects a subject’s ability to excite and appeal to the senses.
Fantasy This measure notes a person’s use of fantasy imagery in responding to the test tasks.

Note. Adapted from Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Interpretive Manual (p. 4) by E. P. Torrance, 2008, Scholastic Testing
Service, Inc. Copyright 2018 by Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.

378
379

Appendix I: Educators Artifacts and Photos
Figure I1
Jamestown Construction From Edger

380

Figure I2
Longhouse Construction From Edger

Figure I3
Cube Pyramid Construction From Bevel

381

Figure I4
Edger’s Sonoran Desert 3D Cactus

Figure I5
Football Game Construction from Fastener
382

Figure I6
Anvil Makers’ 30-Second Timer Challenge and City Power Grid Challenge

383

Figure I7
Skee-Ball Arcade Game From Fastener

384

Table I1
Document From Edger: Makers’ Space Task Foci and Scope and Sequence Schedule
Science Inquiry
Date Due Description
CIF question Dec. 4th, 2020 Something that can be tested with
variables and constants.
Background research
and bibliography
Dec. 11th, 2020 Provides information on the need for the
inquiry, information on variables, and a
brief overview of the experiment.
Hypothesis Jan. 13th–Jan. 14th, 2020 Establishes a relationship between
variables.
Materials Jan. 15th, 2020 A comprehensive list of all the materials
needed to complete the inquiry.
Procedures Jan. 16th, 2020 A specific order in which the
investigations would be carried out. A
numbered list preferred.
Testing and data
collection
Jan. 17th–Jan. 22nd,
2020
Table and graphs with the results obtained
during the investigation.
Analysis Jan. 23rd, 2020 A written analysis of the data obtained
during the investigation. Identifying
patterns and coming to a conclusion.
Conclusion Jan. 24th, 2020 A conclusion based on the analysis of the
relates that either supports or does not
support the initial hypothesis.
Final presentation Jan. 10th, 2021 Google slides with each of the sections
listed including a photos and reference
section.
Engineering Projects
Problem Dec. 19th, 2019 A description of the problem that needs to
be solved by the engineering process.
Background research
and bibliography
Jan. 7th–Jan. 10th, 2020 A look into the problem using statistics
and existing solutions. The drawbacks
of existing solutions and the need for
better options.
Design/Blueprint Jan. 13th–Jan 14th, 2020 A sketch and a blueprint
Materials Jan. 15th, 2020 If building a prototype, a comprehensive
list of the materials.
Methodology Jan. 16th, 2020 A detailed description of testing the
prototype.
385

Construction Jan. 17th–Jan. 22nd,
2020
A detailed description of the construction
of the prototype.
Testing Jan. 23rd, 2020 Data in the form of tables and graphs.
Data analysis Jan 24th, 2020 A written analysis of the data obtained
during the investigation. Identifying
patterns and coming to a conclusion.
Conclusion Jan. 25th, 2020 A conclusion based on the analysis of the
data that demonstrates the success of
the prototype or indicates changes that
need to be made.
Final presentation Jan. 27th, 2020 Google slides with each of the sections
listed including a photos and reference
section.
Problem-based learning
Define problem Dec. 19th, 2019 A description of the problem that needs to
be solved that requires public support.
Background research
and bibliography
Jan. 7th–Jan. 10th, 2020 A look into the problem using statistics
and existing solutions. The drawbacks
of existing solutions and the need for
better options.
Proposed solution Jan. 13th– Jan. 14th,
2020
A proposed solution that can be used to
mitigate the effects of the existing
problem.
Materials Jan. 15th, 2020 If building a prototype, the comprehensive
list of materials.
Procedures Jan. 16th, 2020 A specific order in which the attempt to
solve the problem would be carried out.
A numbered list preferred.
Data Jan. 17th–Jan. 22nd,
2020
Charts and graphs that reflect the data
collected.
analysis Jan. 23rd, 2020 A written description of the data collected
or how you would analyze the data.
Conclusion Jan. 25th, 2020 A conclusion based on the analysis of the
data that demonstrates the success of
the prototype or indicates changes that
need to be made.
Final presentation Jan. 27th, 2020 Google slides with each of the sections
listed including a photos and reference
section.

386

Figure I8
Building Maker Construction at Bevel

Figure I9
Edger’s National (Washington) Monument Challenge

Table I2
Anvil’s Maker Schedule

387

388
389
Figure I11
Fastener’s Air Hockey Challenge

Figure I12
Fastener Artifacts of Maker Chat House Construction
1.
2.
3.
4.

390

Figure I13
Bevel Hoop Challenge Presentation Slides

391

Figure I14
Bevel Olympic Challenge Task

392

Figure I15
Bevel Math Game Challenge Lesson

Figure I16
Bevel Makers’ Space Room Setup

393

Figure I17
Edger Artifacts

394

Figure I18
Fastener Artifacts of Arcade Challenge

Figure I19
Fastener Artifacts of Maker Tasks

395

These examples from Fastener demonstrate the unique interests and complexity that are
brought into the maker experience. Out of the same group of students. came a cat, a motorized
catapult and a pinwheel type electric flower that were all built from around-the-house materials:
2x4s, cardboard, screws, yarn, string, wire, paint, markers, toilet paper rolls, circuits, and motors.
Yet the commonality is that they demonstrate aesthetics from simplicity, functionality, and
usability by way of inquiry, interpretation, and implications of the students’ calculated,
disciplined, judgment generated by reflection, and reasoning, resulting in problem-solving, and
self-managing judgment.

396

Appendix J: Lesson Plans
Table J1
A Description of Maker Lessons That Were Observed for Observational Data
School Excerpts and description of lessons
Anvil (Allen) The teacher described the challenge along with an exchange
between the teacher and a team working to earn the next set of
clues:
This is the governor's office, and you need to form your line right
here. Like when you go to the bank or go to here [other line]. ...
But then when the next available window is open, you go to
that place. I can only have one team at a window talking to the
assistant at a time. If you're in this space, but it's not your turn,
you're going to be asked to go to the end of the line. Wait here
until somebody calls you forward. Thumbs up if this one makes
sense (most students show thumbs up). I also need you to know
that this is a competition. You and your team are working to
accomplish that task first. So, if you are telling your ideas too
loud, or if you are actively trying to cheat by looking at
somebody else's work, we might have to ask you to move, and
then step and stand outside. And maybe this isn't the right one
for you because it's a competition, don't cheat. Now, we will
have somebody walking around taking notes and making sure
that you're being honest. But we want you to play the game
because learning on your own is fun. The iteration process is
the fun of it. And if you cheat yourself out of the process,
you've ruined the game ... T: (to a team of students): you
mentioned in your letter how you're going to use it and you're
supposed to have the people do that so good job, how the land
will be used. You included the [recommended vocabulary]
words and put cattle in the leasing so the governor will really
like that. So, make sure to always do that as well. But your
letter is missing the key ingredient. And the key ingredients are
here. So, go read this and figure out what you need to do. So,
go back. Don't take forever. ... I should see the next four
minutes. If I don't see you in the next four minutes, it's gone
wrong.
Bevel (Brandy) The teacher’s lesson gives details and inspires immediate
discussion from the teams.
397

School Excerpts and description of lessons
So, half of the team will build a hoop and basket and my other
half of the team will be creating a free throw shooter (shows
picture of a launcher). So, you are going to be building a
mechanism sort of like this (projects a diagram), but you get to
make your own version of it. You get skilled with your own
idea of how you are going to get your basketball, through the
hoop. Girl student: We are using a golf ball? students begin
discussing what to do with their designs ... we can put it up
high ... T: Hoop team. Parameters are shown on the screen.
Here's the breakdown, if you're on the team like I already said
the bottom of the backboard, needs to be 16 inches from the
tabletop the hoop, and next if you decide to add a net it must
allow the ball to pass through easily so however big your hoop
is it needs to be able to fit this ping pong ball. If you are on the
free throw shooting team, you must propel the ball through the
air so it can go through. And next, your launcher whatever you
build needs to be resting on the tabletop and be the only
mechanism going along. So, you can't use your hand to like,
toss the ball into the hoop. Your mechanism that you build
needs to be the only thing moving the ball, and it has to be
resting on the tabletop. Okay. Student: Does it need to be a
countable mechanism? T: Yep that's it.
Bevel (other
teacher/survey
participant)
The teacher promoted the challenge:
T: I want to see problem-solving and creating something really
good in the beginning. You may have many ideas, but you can
combine [them]. Thumbs up if you make good ideas ... all
students give thumbs up ... you will create a math game.
Students chorally repeat ... about a math topic this year ... grace
multiplication ... angles. Be thinking and you must have a name
for your game with a title ... clear directions (e.g., Step 1, Step
2). Not too many steps, it's confusing. Male Student: Like a
board game? Teacher: word game, there's different kinds of
games, but think about something like that that you play at
home to me. Okay, I'm going to give you a planning page to
start planning. Remember we do not need to elevate our voices
out of this classroom. ... Finish your ideas and your thinking
before you finish writing it, that's okay. You can start getting
materials but if you want to finish. ... Get some materials, get
moving. Go back for more materials, make sure you're
communicating effectively. ... Remember you can use markers
for drawing as well as 3-D as well. Don't be afraid to kind of
narrow down your focus if it's too much right?
398

School Excerpts and description of lessons
Fastener (Fanny and
another lab facilitator
who did not participate
in the survey)
In the educator’s words, the maker chats were ... what the kids are
interested in. So, as far as maker chats go, when we talk to our
kids who are in the maker chats, we ask them what they're
interested in, and then we just guide them through making that
thing. Okay. So, we've had some kids make boats, like little toy
boats, we've had some kids make some little houses. We've had
some kids make little toy cars, it's kind of just whatever you're
interested in, we guide you through it.
The teacher did some prep with the student prior to the lessons by
emailing back and forth ideas about what materials were around
the house and which tools were available such as scissors, tape,
glue, yarn, thread, needles. As she stated, the primary purpose
was to guide students through learning by making. The teacher
made suggestions in response to the materials available. For
example, the teacher recommended that the student use a
canary saw instead of scissors or a blade to cut cardboard.
When the lesson started the educator asked for the student to
share ideas about what she wanted to make, which ended up
being a dollhouse. From there the educator went through the
student’s materials as they met online. The teacher offered
techniques for the student to use to build the components of the
house after first drawing a design in her journal. The lessons
were approximately thirty to 45 minutes each.

399

Anvil Lesson Plan

Inventor Planning Sheet
Each student will be planning and making their own project. The challenge is to create an
invention that will help in some way with Covid-19. Here are some challenges or problems that
you may want to help solve with your invention.
• Social Distancing (The need for people to stay 6 feet apart.)
• Prevent the Spread of Germs (Mask and gloves are inventions we have now. Can they be
improved or reinvented? Is there a new invention to prevent the spread of germs?)
• Information (People need to know when and where it’s safe to be.)
• Distance Learning (We all need to learn using computers and devices. How can we do it even
better!)
• House Pets (Our beloved dogs and some cats need to be exercising.)
• Food & Groceries (We still need to go to the grocery store and sometimes have good delivered.
How can we do this more safely?)
• Being inside a lot! (It’s stressful and can even a little boring being inside all day. How can we
sooth and entertain ourselves without screens?)
These are just some possible suggestions. You can up with anything as long as it helps with
what’s going on right now.
Planning and steps: We will do these steps together in zoom class. Step 1: List three ideas.
A. _______________________________________________________________
B. _______________________________________________________________
C. _______________________________________________________________
Step 2: With the help of your teacher, we will choose one idea. Circle the one we choose.

Figure J2
Anvil Lesson Plan
Step 3: Give your idea a name, if you haven’t already, and describe it in more detail.
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Step 4: List the materials you will need for your idea. Remember you will need to make your
invention from things that you have at home or that you can easily get.
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
400

______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
On the back of this sheet, draw a picture (diagram) of your invention. Label it with your
materials and any other important information.

Strategies:

Here is an example of a lesson that would demonstrate these things.

1.4 Students compare and contrast everyday life in different times and places
around the world and recognize that some aspects of people, places, and things
change over time while others stay the same.

1. Examine the structure of schools and communities in the past.
2. Study transportation methods of earlier days.
3. Recognize similarities and differences of earlier generations in such areas as work
(inside and outside the home), dress, manners, stories, games, and festivals, drawing
from biographies, oral histories, and folklore.

Anvil Lesson Plan
Description: Systems of transportation from past to present and future. Students identify
transportation, in varied forms, as anything that moves people or goods from one location to
another. Students explore four categories of transportation: Transportation by air, transportation
by sea, transportation by land, and transportation by rail. Students additionally identify
multifaceted forms of transportation, such as horses, bicycles, walking, and skateboards, and
their connections to the past. Students explore the future of transportation through its connection
to the past. Students design and create three-dimension representations of their own unique
transportation.

Resources:
1. BrainPop Jr. Video: Transportation
2. Large floor cards: Categories of transportation, descriptions of vehicles, three part-timeline
3. YouTube video: Future transportation
Car & plane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeQL-dUjlOg
Car & boat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m817LZ1d5N8
401

Snow-scooter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPehvAFgzAY
4. Book: No Need for Monty, James Stevenson
5. Expanded automobile timeline
6. Characteristics of vehicles badges
7. Paper, stencils, scissors, glue
8. Varied three-dimensional materials for building transportation

Steps: (3–4 45-minute classes)
1. Students watch BrainPop video introducing transportation.
2. Teacher guides students in identifying and categorizing varying forms of transportation.
3. Students use large floor cards as centers. First putting three pictures in order from oldest to
newest then exploring each form of transportation by reading a description and answering a
question.
4. Students watch three brief videos that takes transportation from the past to the future and
combines two kinds of transportation.
5. Teacher reads book, No Need for Monty by James Stevenson. Teacher asks questions that
encourages students to make connections to previous steps.

Anvil Lesson Plan
6. Students use 15 pictures to create a timeline of automobiles over the past 100 years. Teacher
reviews timeline. Pictures can be grouped roughly from 1900–1940, 1960–1990–2000–present
and future.
7. Teacher reiterates big ideas: Transportation uses systems: power, controls, cabin, cargo,
wheels, wings, rails. Make connections between past, present, and future transportation and these
characteristics.
8. Students design their own transportation and are able to label their transportation system.
9. Students are guided in creating three-dimensional representations of their transportation.

402

Appendix K: Description of Maker Materials and Tool Carts
Materials cart includes five blue plastic baskets filled with Elmer's glue, balls of hay and
wood shavings in Ziplock bags, primary color markers; two black swiss holed plastic baskets
include scissors, masking tape, yarn in Ziplock bags. There are four shelves for lined paper,
blank copy paper, grid paper, and black construction paper. On top of one of the wooden center
island materials carts are a pegboard wall with hooks holding hot glue guns, black-covered wire
on a cylinder roll, extension cords, power surge strips, and electric screwdrivers. There is a vice
clamp attached to the top of the cart. On top of the rolling shelf, there is a small plastic paper
cutter on top of a stack of bonded paper. On the shelf, there is an indented bucket that has
Ziplock bags of colored plastic geometric shapes and various cards with pictures on them such as
butterflies. There are suede gardening gloves and glue guns hanging from hooks. On the edge of
the room and lining the walls is an iPad device cart. There is a countertop with doored cabinets
below on the floor. On top of the counter is a printer. There are various projects made from
materials such as pipe cleaners, spiral slinky-looking springs, plastic pieces, paperboard cones
with cotton balls glued onto them. In between the wall counters and the center islands carts are
tables for students to work. On top of one of the wooden center island materials carts is a
pegboard wall that has hooks holding hot glue guns, black-covered wire on a cylinder roll,
extension cords, power surge strips, electric screwdrivers and there is a vice clamp attached to
the top of the cart. The other side of Bevel's center island rolling cart has cubbies with medium
size blue plastic bins. The bins contain yarn, tissue paper, multicolored bond paper, newspaper,
and black felt. There are also scissors on top of the cart.
On the other side of the wheeled center, the island cart contains a top half and a bottom
half. The bottom half has green open bins with dollar amounts on them. These are costs to
403

classroom bucks that the teacher uses to promote budgeting on maker projects. This adds
cognitive load and challenge to the projects. The bottom half containers hold medium white
plastic bottles, black felt, wire springs, plastic caps with a t-cross in the center, small white
plastic bottles, imitation hair, multicolored polyester string nests, red yarn, the heart-shaped tops
of Valentine's candy boxes, cotton swabs, small clear plastic bottles. The top half of the cart is
separated by a piece of plywood. It has a pegboard wall holding with hooks a box of drill bits, a
Galax Pro single speed electric drill, an orange extension cord, an orange Black and Decker
electric drill, small film size clear plastic vials of a variety of sizes of screws, connector tubes,
nuts, bolts, hot glue guns, a photo to demonstrate where the tools hold be placed be pegboard,
Matchbox 3D printer filament.
The middle-of-the-room carousel (Figure K1) at Bevel gave the students the opportunity
to infer optimal choices between which tools and materials were best served to achieve the
maker’s goal-directed purpose. The center island cart included a metal saw, nut drivers, plastic
vials with washers, screws, nuts, Allen wrenches, metal rulers, glue sticks and a hacksaw. All
hung on a pegboard. The cart has a plastic spiraled green tube running along the top connected
by a round black cap and a wooden dowel in between. The cart was made of pine and plywood.
On the same side of that cart under tools were materials that included small plastic, green
stacking uncovered bins with materials in them. Each bin had its own unique material. On the
outside of each bin was a label with a dollar amount such as $4.00 for cotton cloths; $8.00 for
linen cloths; another bin with multicolored cloths; $7.00 for colored plastic discs; $2.00 for
colored film cover plastic discs with a hole in the center; $6.00 for yellow plastic highway
topped pyramid center lane markers; $9.00 for unseen materials; an empty bin; $4.00 for
polyester fill; $4.00 for white disc lids; $7.00 for small pink plastic vials similar to a 5-hour
404

energy size-no tops; $3.00 for metallic medium-sized connectors; $11.00 for white plastic
circular connectors; $4.00 for multicolored thin plastic solid tubes; $7.00 for plastic syringes;
$4.00 for multi-colored various plastic pieces. The pricing on the materials containers added
another level of CT to tasks in which the T put a budget limit on availability and choice of
materials.

Figure K1
Bevel’s Materials and Tools Cart

405

Appendix L: analysis and Diagrams of Makers’ Spaces
This appendix contains diagrams, descriptions, and analyses of the makers’ spaces from
some of the participating schools that either provided a diagram or were part of the observation
process. In reviewing pictures, it is evident that tables and chairs and stools are necessary
components to a lab. A choice of saws is a CT component. Knowing whether to use a long thin
or a short wide saw for pieces of wood takes analysis and calculated judgment.

406

Figure L1
Edger’s Makers’ Space

407

Figure L2
Fastener’s Makers’ Space

408

Figure L3
Bevel’s Makers’ Space

The teacher at Bevel set up at a spot at the southwest wall where there was also a monitor
that the teacher used for displaying the lesson and lead-in videos. The room layout provided
multiple small spaces of varying sitting space for the students. There was a rug next to the T
corner. There was a small round table that gave a group a more isolated workspace away from
the other groups should they have chosen to use it. The room had two long tables on each side of
the materials island. These tended to be shared between two groups giving less privacy than the
409

circle table. The counters surrounding the north wall and the east wall also provided space for
students to work. The east wall had multiple projects from other classes, but it did have some
open space so that a student had the option to work on a small project or a smaller component of
a bigger project. There was also space on the tiled floor between the table and the west wall for
students who chose to work. It also served as a testing runway for students who needed a longer
space than a table to try out their projects. In the case of the hoop and launcher, this space was
used by a few groups because if their ball overshot the hoop it went into an unoccupied space
rather than at a table where the shot may hit another group's project.
One group that completed their task faster than the other groups and went to trial faster
and set up on the floor from the beginning. It seemed like being on the floor was less
constraining for them. They were relaxed and felt like they could spread out more than the other
groups. Since they were on the ground, they had multiple trials along the way into their making
even before it was completed. The room layouts promoted systems thinking and curiosity as
depicted in Figure L4.

410

Figure L4
Bevel’s Table Setup and Student Movement Pathways

The drawing in this example shows the pattern of movement for the GATE student
during the March Madness maker project in which students are making a hoop and ball launcher
simulating a basketball shot. It was recorded in two rotations through the room and back to his
group. In the first rotation, he made seven moves. From his group’s table, he moved to the back
of the room (south wall), where the glue station is along with materials such as cardboard and
connector items. He spent time there looking over another group’s work and asking questions
about what they are doing. His second move was to the east wall counter where he looked over
projects from other classes. His third move was to walk around the table that he is next to, stop
ask questions of students in another group and then made suggestions and adjustments to that
group’s construction. He put some of his materials on this table and glues parts together with one
of the male students. His fourth move was to walk over to the east side of the materials and tools
island where he gathers materials to begin working on his group’s project. Before taking the
materials to his table to walked behind him to another group’s table to inquire about their project.
411

He worked with a male student to putting together a part of his project and then moved to
another side of the table to work with the lead female student who was building a different part
of their shooter. After working with that group his fifth move was back to his own group’s table
to share what he put together and to explain what he wanted them to work on next. In rotation
two, the student worked with a group partner, move one, to get some of the building started, and
left that student to walk around the table to make tweaks to two of the other group partners
(move two). Then, he moved to the group that completed their launcher, took the ball and started
testing the launcher (move three). In move four he walked from his group’s table to the west side
of the materials/tool island and picked out materials from the bins and then moved down the
island to choose tools (move five). Finally, he walked to the other side of the island to choose
some colored paper (move six) and back to his group to share these materials with his idea about
how to add them to the project (move seven). There was an intense demonstration of curiosity
and a need to move from one part of the construction to the next and from one place in the room
to another to observe and find out what other students were doing with their design. Instead of
completing the intermittent tasks himself, he got them started and then recruited another student
from his group to take over the task to completion.
The materials cart included five blue plastic baskets filled with Elmer's glue; balls of hay
and wood shavings in Ziplock bags; primary color markers; two black swiss holed plastic baskets
include scissors; masking tape; yarn in Ziplock bags. There were four shelves for lined paper,
blank copy paper, grid paper, and black construction paper. On top of the center island shelf
were free plastic cups, a three-bin plastic drawer that includes sharpies, cookie cutters, glue,
rubber bands, highlighters. On top of the rolling shelf, there was a small plastic paper cutter on
top of a stack of bonded paper. On the shelf, there was an indented bucket that has Ziplock bags
412

of colored plastic geometric shapes and various cards with pictures on them such as butterflies.
There were suede gardening gloves and glue guns hanging from hooks. On the edge of the room
and lining the walls was an iPad device cart. There was a countertop with doored cabinets below
on the floor. On top of the counter was a printer. There were various projects made of materials
such as pipe cleaners, spiral slinky-looking springs, plastic pieces, paperboard cones with cotton
balls glued onto them. In between the wall counters and the center islands carts were tables for
students to work. The center island cart also included a metal saw, nut drivers, plastic vials with
washers, screws, nuts, Allen wrenches, metal rulers, glue sticks and a hack saw. All of it hung on
pegboard. The cart had a plastic spiraled green tube running along the top connected by a round
black cap and a wooden dowel in between. The cart was made out of pine and plywood. On the
other side of the wheeled center, the island cart contained a top half and a bottom half. The
bottom half had green open bins with dollar amounts on them. These are costs to classroom
bucks that the teacher used to promote budgeting on maker projects. This added cognitive load
and challenge to the projects. The bottom half containers held medium white plastic bottles,
black felt, wire springs, plastic caps with a t-cross in the center, small white plastic bottles,
imitation hair, multicolored polyester string nests, red yarn, the heart-shaped tops of Valentine's
candy boxes, cotton swabs, small clear plastic bottles. The top half of the cart was separated by a
piece of plywood. It had a pegboard wall holding with hooks a box of drill bits; a Galax Pro
single speed electric drill; an orange extension cord; an orange Black and Decker electric drill;
small film size clear plastic vials of a variety of sizes of screws; connector tubes, nuts, bolts, hot
glue guns; a photo to demonstrate where the tools hold be placed be pegboard; Matchbox 3D
printer filament. The other side of Bevel's center island rolling cart had cubbies with medium
size blue plastic bins. The bins contained yarn, tissue paper, multicolored bond paper,
413

newspaper, and black felt. There were also scissors on top of the cart. This diagram displayed the
room layout for the Bevel makers’ space. It showed that there was work counter space along the
back wall and the north wall. There was also a sink at the end of the counter. The north wall
counter served in large part as a hot glue station. Approximately eight people fit at this table.
Several students used the table to bring their project away from the group to put parts of their
game structure together and then bring it back to the group for evaluation and discussion about
the next steps. There were three rectangular tables holding two groups of four at each table as
well as a circular table at the southeast corner of the room near the back wall counter. That
counter served more as a holding station for projects from other classes. Each group tended to
have an emerging lead student. At the circle table, the lead positioned herself on the room's
corner side of the table giving her a clear view of the whole room. Similarly, the group with the
GATE student positioned himself initially with his back to the southwest corner of the room
which is also at the closest proximity to the teacher station. The doors were on the western side
of the room. In the center was a large rectangular island that have two levels. The bottom level
contained cubbies, tubs, and shelves of materials available for the students to use for their
projects. The top level of the island was pegboard with hooks and multiple tools available for the
students to utilize. The other side of Bevel's center island rolling cart had cubbies with medium
size blue plastic bins. The bins contain yarn, tissue paper, multicolored bond paper, newspaper,
and black felt. There were also scissors on top of the cart. On the top half of the rolling center
island cart was a pegboard wall with hooks containing pliers, plastic triangular squares, levels,
measuring tape, metal hammers, rubber mallets, screwdrivers, suede garden gloves, hand clamps,
goggles, wire cutters, metal punches.

414

Figure L5
Anvil’s makers’ space

In photos from Bevel, the maker mindset was evident in the freedom that was entrusted in
the students enabling them to develop CT. It also promoted multiple perspectives to determine
the best solutions. A unique aspect of this lab is that it had an entirely clear glass wall to the
outside which promoted light and a feeling of openness.

415

Appendix M: Test of Critical Thinking Manual
Table M1
Assessed Subcomponents of Critical Thinking
CT subcomponent Description
Issue Issue items ask students to identify the central problem, question, or issue
reflected in the overall scenario or in a specified portion of the
scenario.
Purpose Purpose items generally ask students the purpose of a character’s
behavior, to analyze why a character chose to take a certain action or
perform a specific behavior.
Concept Concept items generally address the major underlying ideas of a
scenario. Concept items often reflect the primary or secondary domain
in which the scenario is classified (e.g., a concept question in a
Competence domain scenario might focus on aspects of a character’s
ability to achieve a task competently).
Point of view Point of view items ask students to determine a character’s perspective
related to key issues in a scenario or to assess the differences in points
of view between characters.
Assumptions Assumptions items emphasize the underlying beliefs that shape
characters’ decisions, speech, or actions. Some assumption items call
upon students to identify the assumptions they themselves are making
that allow certain interpretations of the scenarios
Evidence Evidence questions focus sharply on the specific information provided
(or not provided) within the scenario. Some of these questions ask
students to identify evidence that best supports a given conclusion, or
to recognize that insufficient evidence is provided to support certain
conclusions. Other evidence questions ask students to assess the
influence of additional information, provided within the item, on their
interpretation of the scenario.
Inference All TCT items require some aspect of interpretation; as such they are all
inherently inferential in nature. However, items classified as inference
items ask students to infer conclusions based on the evidence presented
in the scenario; many of these items ask students to determine which of
the given options is “most likely” or “least likely” to be true, based on
the story they have read.
Implication Implication items ask students to determine what is likely to happen next
after the given scenario, or to trace character decisions back to the
conclusions that led to them. Some implication questions also ask
students to determine the likely outcomes of possible events not
presented in the scenario; some of these address events that might yet
happen, while others ask students what would have occurred if
something in the scenario had happened differently.

416

Note. Adapted from the Test of Critical Thinking Examiner’s Manual (pp. 12–13) by B. A.
Bracken, W. Bai, E. Fithian, M. S. Lamprecht, C. Little, and C. Quek, 2003, Center for Gifted
Education, The College of William and Mary. In the public domain

417

Appendix N: Student Groupings
Participants emphasized how intentional grouping set the stage for cultivating CreaT and
CT. Grouping is important because collaboration and communication are the ways in which
CreaT and CT are most readily observed. Because of this, it was important to identify how the
educators grouped their students and they were asked if there was a group size maximized.
During the interviews, five out of six participants were decisive about having three students in a
group which they referred to as “magical,” or “sweet spot.” Eden exclaimed that more than three
on a team results in “too many cooks in the kitchen. Fanny elaborated, “one kid who's the odd
one out or just doesn't have enough tasks” and Brandy added “who is just kind of along for the
ride and willing to contribute when they can.” Having more than three participants reduces
comprehensive collaboration and communication by all of the members in the team and,
according to Ellen, they “get too competitive sometimes not necessarily to make the product
better or contribute in such a way that would be to their best, they're just trying to do it better
than their partner.” Having two students on a team lent itself to a lack of balance in
communication of ideas and feedback while, in some cases, instigating unhealthy competition
among the pairs. One caveat came from the GATE educators who shared that there were times
when individual grouping benefited the students who “thrive in their own spaces” according to
Eden. “We would often give them the opportunity to work by” themselves because there were
times when they needed independent time to collect their thoughts due to their OEs. Ellen
pointed out that purposeful small grouping “on abilities, skills or interests” also promoted the
collaboration and communication necessary to “differentiate instruction,” and balance emotional
maturity because “they had to learn to collaborate and to cooperate, and they had to learn how to
say okay I'm going to take a step back and not fight for my idea” according to Eden. This
418

fostered CreaT and CT when they learned to listen to other ideas and receive feedback. Their
perspectives opened up, and they developed the perseverance to remain open to original and
elaborated upon ideas. Brandy shared, “I try to be really strategic with how I group them to have
at least one person in the group that can explain the whole objective to other people and to give
jobs,” where Cate observed that “they had to delegate and work as a team.” Allen shared that
“Every pairing that we've done has been heterogeneous, putting a high and a low in the middle in
a group and that balances out the mix.” The results of this approach to grouping promoted
leadership among the students and there was evidence of agency such that students within the
groups could take on the different roles interchangeably. It also revealed various talents among
the students because the small group aspect created a safe space for them to express and
exchange their ideas so that they were refined through communication, increasing evidence of
their CreaT and CT.
The survey data reinforced that “makers’ spaces work best in small groups (of two to
three) where students were communicating with each other about the product being made,”
according to Frieda. Driller1 pointed out that when students “had to continually work together in
groups they communicated, analyzed, and then modified their (codes, designs, construction) if it
didn't solve the problem.”
Observational data, which included observations of groups of one, two, three, and four,
reinforced that the ideal group size was three students. During observations, roles were either
distributed fluidly by the educators, or the students self-selected their roles. The roles included a
lead student in each group who guided conversation and moved ideas and revisions forward,
along with materials: gatherers, writers, sketchers, and constructors. The two-person groups
tended to have one person slightly dominate the discussion, design journaling and sketching,
419

while delegating more mundane tasks such as filling in drawings to the less dominant partner. At
the same time, pairs of high/low students complemented each other’s abilities and demonstrated
positive criticism for designs that needed adjustments. The pairs were productive but did not go
as deep into analysis as three-person groups and even naturally drew in a third person from
another group at times to offer feedback or supporting ideas. The groups of four tended to have
one student who was less of a contributor to the communication and construction process, or they
self-subdivided into two pairs. An example from Allen involved a GATE student paired up with
someone who was “on the lower side,” but together, they wrapped a rubber band around a cup
and then put popsicle sticks and would wind up the popsicle sticks. When they let go, they
demonstrated that they had stored energy into the rubber band on the stick.
Documents data demonstrated multiple photos in which three students worked productively, with
full participation, by constructing, choosing, and connecting materials together. It suggested
implication and inferred recommendations to each other following observations and analyzing
test/retest results to make calculated judgments about design adjustments. Even in documents
that included maker groups of two and four, there was evidence that student collaboration and
communication occurred to evaluate construction choices and work out engineering skills.
Student roles were also evidenced in the documents, which included lead students, observers and
commenters, and constructors connecting the materials. The intentional grouping fostered
thinking and discussion during the early stages of design and then through the iterative test/retest
phases. These groups set the stage for CreaT and CT to manifest and develop in a way that was
unique to learning in a makers’ space.
420

Appendix O: The Maker Mindset
An axiom of maker learning is that students learn in a setting that promotes endurance,
reflection, and an openness to adapt (coded 160 times). During the COVID closure, a
phenomenon of a digital partnership emerged as the educator successfully bridged the divide
between being physically present and yet connecting pedagogically and emotionally. A theme
that emerged to have an impact on CT and CreaT in unidentified and GATE students during the
data analysis was the concept of the maker mindset (coded 656 times). The maker mindset is an
idea that drives the passion behind the why and the how of maker learning as well as the what—
maker labs, makers’ spaces, design labs, etc. It was a significant element to understanding the
maker confidence phenomenon. The data revealed an emerged definition that extended beyond
Chapter 2’s description of a philosophy wherein students were motivated, through open-ended
tasks, to problem-solve critically and creatively through design, discovery, inquiry, and
reflection. Then through collaborative and individual experiences and tasks they connected
knowledge to innovate, construct and persevere to invent and make products that serve societal
purposes and needs. In a maker mindset, learners frequently tinker and risk learning and
innovating. Through this mindset, the goal of learning is not simply the accumulation of bits of
knowledge, but the understanding, use, and application of knowledge so that learning becomes
connected to life inside and outside of school, both for the present and the future (Brake, 2012;
Dougherty, 2012; Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017; Roberson & Woody, 2012). The benefits were
epitomized by Brandy:
I always like to change up the groupings. And that means that they need to be flexible
and able to work with others, and I feel like that is definitely something that they're going
to have to do in their life. I'm also thinking of them being outside of the box, and
421

problem-solving. I'm like you might not have the exact material that you want to create
this product, but you have all these other things, so what can you do to solve your
problem using what you have in front of you. Problem-solving and working
collaboratively with people. I feel like these are the two big things that are going to
follow them.
Through these data, I grouped those constructs into three buckets that are evidenced by
innovative and useful products:
● autonomous 21st century learning
● endurance, reflection, openness to adapt
● stakeholder buy-in
These three concepts were an aspect of the phenomena that both exposed giftedness and revealed
giftedness as reported by the participants in the surveys, interviews, observations, and documents
of the study. In turn, these skills built the autonomous aspect in students that I refer to as maker
confidence which extended beyond the classroom and beyond the school to making at home. It is
a construct that developed in the students over time due to their response to failure by
persevering through mistakes and challenges utilizing 21st century skills.
Cognitive skills and standards mastery aside, making promotes the soft skills needed to
be innovative members of society’s workforce and entrepreneurial group. To make, one must
figure things out and learn to learn. Collaboration, choice of tools, open-ended tangible tasks
promote interest, motivation, and perseverance through calculated frustration promotes creativity
(Kaufman, 2016), engagement, personal relevance (Somanath et al., 2016) socio-emotional
growth, and confidence. Moreover, the motivational impact that the maker mindset had on both
unidentified and GATE students is relevant. Table 16 demonstrated the impact that makers’
422

spaces had on students’ interest, self-efficacy, and attribution of their success to effort. Figure 23
points out that CreaT, which was lower than CT prior to the makers’ space intervention,
increased to most of the time alongside motivation suggesting that the maker mindset had a role
in revealing creative giftedness and also improving CT skills.

423

Appendix P: Background to the Study
My 21st century journey to accomplish this endeavor began in 2014 San Jose, California
at the Supporting the Emotional Needs of the Gifted National Conference. The concept of an
educational makerspace was described to me as a learning opportunity connected with the
intellectual and socio-emotional needs of gifted students. In this description by the organization’s
then-incoming president, Kate Bachtel, set in Arizona public schools, gifted students had the
opportunity to pursue pragmatic design interests that promoted logic, higher-order thinking, and
creativity. The students were observed to thrive on the opportunity to have choice within guided
parameters of designing useful products for consumers. The space allowed both independent and
collaborative learning that applied procedural STEM and literacy in writing, speaking, coding,
and multimedia. Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation played a role in the students’ learning in
these makerspaces.
The next step in this 21st century learning journey was at the 2016 Supporting the
Emotional Needs of the Gifted National conference wherein other educators and leaders of
schools shared their experiences with starting and promoting makerspaces at their schools. We
collaborated in the makeup of the space as I collected pictures of the storage structure that
included towers of plastic bins of materials and tool walls as the new texts for students who
utilized the makerspaces. One school leader shared inspiring stories of how the makerspace
extended into situational opportunities in which the students had the opportunity to work with
real-life disciplinarians who consulted with the student and arranged off-campus field trips to
work sites. The amazing results were that students were able to go beyond creating prototypes of
scaled-down versions of what they were making. In some cases, the relationship with
professionals in the field allowed the learners to build their ideas and product to a commercial
424

level at the professional’s worksite. These school leaders worked at independent schools and at
public suburban schools. Their settings were in supportive cultures of learning with parent and
stakeholder support. The descriptions of learners given opportunities to build on an area of
interest that resulted in cases in which businesses plans and small corporations were created, or
innovation showed up in fashion on some projects and in creatively extending current products
and inventions to community needs were going on. This all occurred outside and inside the
classroom. It created learning opportunities that were life-impacting for students who would not
have been able to tap into culturally relevant products using CT and CreaT in a traditional, text-
centered classroom. These interactions inspired me to provide this opportunity for the students in
the urban school that I worked with.
Does this sound like the PBL that educators have been promoting for decades now? I
have seen educators who integrate what they call enrichment, often for GATE students, like
artistic creativity. Examples include hammering nails or screwing screws into a piece of wood
and, with yarn or string, design a geometric artistic piece. Others make available Lego’s or sticks
or blocks or straws or any other constructive/construction piece and give the students free play
time to explore and build. There may or may not be a connection to purposefully designed
structures. These activities are often free to play without intentional guided learning to connect
the activities with CT, CreaT, or academic standards. Not to discount the value of play as an
avenue to design thinking and learning (Honey & Kanter, 2013), and while this may take CreaT
and even CT to create the design, it may fall short of what we are pursuing as CreaT that benefits
society or CT that transfers to life skills. Maker learning ought to build confidence in students by
using and building upon CT and CreaT to build literacy, design process learning, standards
mastery, and community benefits. This has been done in multiple middle and high schools, but in
425

one of the largest school districts in the country, it was nots accomplished in an elementary
school with fidelity, efficiency, and effectiveness.
In the first year of my efforts, 2016, I began by building awareness with the resources at
hand. Educational technology became low-hanging fruit as it were because of grant opportunities
and support from the district to promote STEAM. I worked with a collaborative, visionary
administrative and teacher team to promote the benefits and provide training to build awareness
about coding, use of hardware and software for learning and use of our district-sponsored Google
Suite. A group of teachers with a passion to both improve their own capabilities as well as
recognize the need to prepare all our students agreed to allow us to meet them where they were
and to move forward from there. We took a field trip to one of the more prominent educational
technology schools in the state that autumn. The group of teachers agreed to implement
activities, inquiry-based learning, and problem-solving both in the classroom and in the school
computer lab. This group of teachers which spanned kindergarten through fifth grade explored
how coding, interactive software, such as green screens, robotics, virtual reality all combined
with the design process and journal writing to achieve Next Generation Science Standards and
California Content Standards mastery. Additionally, the students and teachers developed
confidence while recognizing that their making efforts were not superficial nor were they
intrusions on the instructional routine of the classroom. Instead, they were necessary components
toward students achieving the CT and CreaT skills needed to be confident to face an unknown
future where problem-solving will be a way of survival in the economic market. The students
used the design process, coding, guided learning, and the 4Cs to improve upon already existing
technology, including better boats and ships that can withstand atrocious weather while
improving speed. Another group of students created video games and math progression games
426

using block coding. A fourth-grade teacher who created wonder projects, based on the book,
Wonder (Palacio, 2012), invited professionals to Skype in with the students to understand the
writing process to make their own work professional level. We promoted the idea of being
disciplinarians, and students wore lab coats while designing. They made their own public service
announcements to share with the community their projects to promote the benefits of their
products. Parents participated in workshops. These workshops gave them the opportunity to have
hands-on technology and maker projects to empower them to support their students and the
school’s efforts toward maker and STEAM education. This is important because many
stakeholders express and live with a bias that students need to be at their desks working through
a textbook to be learning and preparing for college truly. We know this is true because parents
complain when this does not occur. When creating a movement that benefits our students, it is
important to bring the parents on board and rally support for the efforts.
This all set the stage for moving toward a makers’ space. I took the next step by
purchasing an easy-to-read getting started book called Worlds of making: Best practices for
establishing a makerspace for your school (Fleming, 2015) for the team of coaches,
administrators, and teachers who were to be formally organized as our instructional technology
team. I learned from this that leading includes cheerleading, supporting, and removal of
obstacles. With the administrative team, we wrote a $25,000 hardware grant and a $115,000
personnel grant to bring in an instructional technology facilitator to provide more hands-on
support and to assist with the beginning of our makers’ space. Additionally, approximately
$15,000 in school site funds went toward a full-time aide to promote coding with all our
students.

427

Dictated Notes From January 15, 2018
What is it that we want out of our educational system do we want them to be good at
making grades on tests do you want them to be good at following a text but what about all the
movements towards project-based learning hands-on activities are these preparing our students
for a world in which technology is changing everyday jobs are changing every day
entrepreneurial opportunities are increasing? Parents themselves, we know, want their students to
sometimes only be prepared for the next step in life whether it be a good high school or a good
college opportunity (Yamamoto & Holloway, 2010), whereas students want to make sure that
they will be prepared for a successful career (Irvin et al., 2016; Ley et al., 1996). We do not even
find a time when parents want to make sure that the students are getting their thinking skills in
the problem-solving skills necessary for their future so long as their grades are doing well. And
at the same time parents were to recognize that we have left behind some of the skills-producing
opportunities in school that many of us had as kids 20 and 30 years ago. That includes metal
shop woodshop home economics tapping into finance skills. Consider quotes from K–12 gifted
students when they consider why they devalue school (Delisle, 2018), “School is irrelevant to
what I'll eventually do in life, and we both know it. Tell me how linear algebra will help me
become a better attorney.” “If you really cared to help me, you'd let me test out of what I know
how to do so that I had time to pursue stuff that is important to me” (p.1). “The reason I don't do
the homework is that I've already proven to you through my class performance that I understand
this stuff. Wouldn't you be as frustrated as I am if you had to do such meaningless work every
night?" All of these are things that we find when we look at the maker space. Does project-based
learning satisfy this? Maybe. We know that if that learning is not guided and explicit and may
not have transferable skills according to Clark (personal communication, July 12, 2019). If
428

project-based learning simply builds critical thinking class or the four Cs and it has some value at
the same time what is important is that it goes into long-term memory to be true learning and that
includes having transferable skills to other opportunities that they will face in life.
On December 19, 2019, teachers expressed that it was important to see other maker
activities in action field trips are important. They also explained that it was important to make
sure it fits in so that does not come across as a brand-new thing to add on to the teachers’ plate.
We need to ensure that it is understood to be part of what we do and instruction and fits into all
aspects of learning. It is important to have opportunities for everyone to participate which could
include rotations of grade levels it could include having it as an elective in middle school it could
include thinking of it as an enrichment after school opportunity or possibly lunch opportunity.
Teachers believe that for it to be successful there needs to be planning days to think about
activities and how they connect to goals, objectives, and standards. Teachers believe there needs
to be a common buy-in and that this could be whole-scale, or it could also be thought of as a
pilot so that smaller groups implement the maker idea. The next steps are to move forward in
individual classrooms and set up field trips.
The scholarliness of what I am doing has to do with the phenomena that arose once we
notice what happens with the impact on adults and students as a result of the maker space. An
entire community got so excited about an idea as to believe that it could impact their child’s life.
They came together, and in five minutes raised $60,000 toward a maker space idea. That was
when I realized that a leader could make an impact on a community. The beauty of it is that it
took the foresight of 21st century learning to make something like that happen. There had to be
collaboration, communication, CreaT, and CT about how to communicate, and then to actually
communicate all these forces had to come together to achieve and realize what happened. We
429

raised that money, and then it extended beyond that because the confidence that we had
something real allowed our dreams to come true, to fruition. We had a confidence once we got it
started that people were behind us. We had a community that wanted something unique and
special for their kids. The teachers who were part of the professional learning experiences that
built their confidence. We went to the University of Southern California maker day and the
teachers participated in making and STEM activities that took them to realms of imagination and
possibility that they had not realized before. So, in a sense even before the makers’ space opened
at our school our teachers were gaining maker confidence to be able to transfer that comfort level
and the excitement to their students. In our first on-site professional learning opportunity with a
local makers’ space, the teachers lived out again the forces of 21st century learning and a
common purpose toward solving a problem, creating an aesthetic piece using wood, screws, and
yarn to allow them to realize that using tools, drills, saws, and glue guns with something was not
such a scary idea. It was not such an unknown idea anymore. It became real to them, and they
came out with a product that they were proud of. This contributed to the phenomenon that then
carried over to the students. The parents had bought in and supported the financing. Once we had
the parents become part of the process parents came in for workshops to have their own ‘lived
experience’ in the makers’ space by creating products by coming up with ideas and building
them. For the most part with these parents who came in, we were looking at predominantly
moms. I would put it at about 80% of the parents who came in were mothers. We started asking
for volunteers to be part of the classroom participation. The excitement that they had in working
with the students and the expressions on their faces when they saw what the students were
accomplishing was part of the phenomenon that contributed to the ongoing success and
excitement and the students. The students who made automatons were so proud of what they did.
430

They could take a machine and then transfer the same machine idea but applying it to different
ideas that they felt were important to them. In some cases, they connected to history content. A
fourth grader got so excited that he shared his project one day in the middle of the hallway with
me, being the principal of the school, showed that he realized he had done something special.
This was a student who had severe social issues. He was a student who had multiple other
parents complain about him because of the way he acted in class and sometimes towards their
own children. This was a student he started to turn around in a year from a kid who was feared
by other kids and parents to become a productive member of his class. Teachers who barked at
the idea of a makers’ space less than a year prior to starting were being ‘sold’ on the idea. They
thought it would impact them too much with all the things they had to get done with their
students. They went from balking at it and fighting against it to being part of the collaborative
planning process to create schedules, project ideas, and set the stage for a successful makers’
space. The students were learning and making so much that they knew that they did not want to
turn back from this unique experience. We had families coming to our school to try to get into
our school simply because they had been hearing about the makers’ space. Enrollment increased.
We had to hire new teachers. And this was in an area that was fairly remote and hard to get to.
What is it we want from our kids do we want them just to get good grades? Do we want
them to be socially adept? Do we want them to do well on tests? Do you want them to only
succeed within a school site arena? Do not we want them to be able to learn and gain skills and
gain influence and gain knowledge that they can use beer on the school site all this knowledge
that can benefit the community could benefit them as they fit into the community so for example,
we want what they learn in school to transcend behind just a report card and then transfer to real-
life contextual settings in which they apply what they learned? Therefore, when a parent of a
431

kindergartner comes back to me saying that when she was trying to install an electrical object her
kindergartner was the one who recognized she could have been doing it more efficiently and
asked to grab the screwdriver and use the screwdriver herself to put the apparatus together. This
kindergartner had learned how to do it in the maker space and had seen it accomplished in a
learning center the environment and because of that accomplishment gain the confidence to be
able to take it back to a real-world setting and solve a problem for her mother, this is what is so
exciting about what we were doing. When a group of students who live in an unsafe area and
recognize the real threat of girls determined that the tools that they now have in their school
maker space will allow them to create what they call a rape dress to deter anybody from
attacking them has turned into something that transcends but they need to learn by the state
standards to being something that impacts their life and they realize and gain the confidence that
learning is important to them and they want to learn and they have been read they did not spiral
that back two more learning because they realize that what they have learned in the knowledge
that they have gained actually does affect their life and it solves that age-old question why am I
doing this?
In my own journey, I have found that involving all stakeholders’ groups in the maker
journey is key. Parents, community, teachers, classified employees, students, board members and
central organization administrators contribute to a successful onboarding maker change process.
The key component which makes making so valuable is the experiential, hands-on aspect of
constructing a creation is exactly the foundation for constructing a maker school with these
stakeholders. It must be experienced.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study explores how upper-grade elementary makers’ spaces reveal creative thinking and critical thinking in identified and unidentified gifted students. It provides evidence that the situated learning context of makers’ spaces elicit high-level motivation through constructionist practices and 21st century learning processes that leads to consistent application of creative thinking and critical thinking. The mixed-methods study incorporated surveys and interviews of educators who are invested in maker learning, observations of students during maker sessions, and analysis of photos, plans, and lesson provided by the educators. The findings indicate substantial perceived creative thinking in all students, more notably in gifted students who underperformed unidentified students on existing assessments. I argue that makers’ spaces reveal giftedness in otherwise unidentified students, and multiple categories of giftedness in already-identified students, and that maker learning is an effective learning method for supporting at-risk students and provide life-skills and innovation opportunities for underserved populations. I propose a new identification category of giftedness, entrepreneurially gifted, which is revealed through making and the concept of maker confidence. I recommend that school and district policy implement makers’ spaces and maker learning to prepare students to be college, career, and entrepreneurial-ready.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Embracing the intersection of giftedness and disability: examining a standalone school model for twice-exceptional learners

PDF

A curriculum to teach innovation in K-4 gifted classrooms

PDF

The significance of investigating the absence of Black decision-makers in television and feature films

PDF

Learning 21st century skills In a multicultural setting

PDF

The impact of diversity courses on students' critical thinking skills

PDF

Analysis of faculty professional identity upon culturally responsive practices and pursuit of critical thinking

PDF

Problem-based learning in a dental school: measuring change in students' critical thinking skills

PDF

Factors that influence the identification of elementary African American students as potentially gifted learners

PDF

Teaching literary criticism: a curriculum with an emphasis on religion

PDF

Decolonizing the classroom: moving from reflection to critical reflection

PDF

Defining and designing a new grammar of school with design thinking: a promising practice study

PDF

Military instructor critical thinking preparation

PDF

Minimizing academic ableism and maximizing course accessibility: a social justice pedagogical approach to faculty development

PDF

An evaluation study of... What do teachers know about gifted students?

PDF

How does working in an ILE at ISSA influence teacher practice?

PDF

Emerging practices for a changing world: a case study of 21st century learning

PDF

Differentiated culturally relevant curriculum to affirm identity for gifted African American students

PDF

The under-referral of African American boys to gifted programs

PDF

A school's use of data-driven decision making to affect gifted students' learning

PDF

Factors influencing gifted students' preferences for models of teaching

Asset Metadata

Creator Saunders, Gary Lee, II (author)

Core Title Making them gifted: how elementary makers’ spaces reveal giftedness

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 04/21/2022

Defense Date 09/03/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag 21st century skills,constructionism,creativity thinking,critical thinking,entrepreneurially gifted,gifted,giftedness,innovation,maker,maker learning,makerspace,making,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Maddox, Anthony B. (committee chair), Kaplan, Sandra N. (committee member), Tobey, Patricia (committee member)

Creator Email glsaunde@usc.edu,spearbearer@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC110765158

Unique identifier UC110765158

Legacy Identifier etd-SaundersGa-10405

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Saunders, Gary Lee, II

Type texts

Source 20220301-usctheses-batch-914 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu