Many autisticFootnote 1 students are interested in STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). Researchers have noted that autism is often characterized by strengths such as pattern recognition, attention to detail, and concentration on interest-based tasks (Grandin & Panek, 2013; Tamm et al., 2020). Wei et al. (2013) conducted a study analyzing data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). They concluded that a higher percentage of autistic students are predisposed to STEM education and careers than the non-autistic population. Their study reported that about 34.31% enter STEM careers with a focus on engineering and computer sciences (Wei et al., 2013, 2014). Autistic students exhibit strengths in their ability to analyze and develop complex patterns based on rule-based systems, make predictions, and attend to nuances and details, a critical requirement for STEM careers (Kouo et al., 2021).

Despite this growing representation of autistic students in STEM programs, Ehsan et al. (2018) found that autistic students are still historically underrepresented in STEM education, post-secondary institutions, and employment due to several academic and social barriers (Fisher et al., 2019). This could be attributed to the lack of accessible and supportive educational systems and programs (Keen et al., 2016; Tamm et al., 2020). There is a dearth of STEM programs that value autistic differences and diverse learning styles due to ineffective teaching strategies of abstract science and engineering concepts that connect a question with textual comprehension, make and modify predictions, and connect it with scientific concepts (Bustamante et al., 2018; Ehsan et al., 2018; Moon et al., 2012). Also, abstract concepts may need scaffolding with opportunities for students to engage with learning materials in unique ways that improve their understanding.

Including Autistic Strengths and Interests to Develop Meaningful Programs

The autistic community implores researchers and educators to accommodate their abilities and value their differences as neutral traits or strengths in different contexts (Kornblau & Robertson, 2021). If autistic interests inform the development of educational and employment opportunities, there is potential to increase their participation even in non-preferred activities (Lanou et al., 2012; Murthi et al., 2023). These interests serve as powerful drivers to help autistic individuals obtain meaningful employment and be recognized for their strengths (Gillespie-Lynch et al., 2018; Patten-Koenig & Hough-Williams, 2017). Evidence from nationwide data showed that about 80% of autistic students persisted through two-year STEM programs, a rate that is twice as high as their non-disabled and other disabled peers (Wei et al., 2014). This evidence demonstrates that autistic students interested in STEM can attain the necessary skills for STEM careers.

Autistic Strengths and Interests in STEM-Related Education and Careers

While interest-based educational programs can increase access to STEM education and opportunities for autistic students in schools and post-secondary contexts, careful development of these programs is critical to ensure autistic differences are appreciated and incorporated into instructional approaches (Israel et al., 2013; Kouo et al., 2021). Developing inclusive pre-college engineering programs that value students’ learning needs is critical for supporting students interested in STEM subjects since these experiences can shape their career choices (Ceci & Williams, 2010; Ehsan et al., 2018; Martin et al., 2020). Furthermore, the diversity of abilities and strengths demonstrated by the autistic community due to their cognitive differences and unique ways of knowing can also benefit the engineering community (Bairaktarova & Pilotte, 2020; Bairaktarova et al, 2016).

The aptitude that many autistic students have for STEM subjects and their focused interests position them well for pursuing and completing post-secondary education. However, although a large portion of autistic adolescents (~ 73%) seek admission into higher education institutions, many are lost to attrition (~ 62%) (Flegenheimer & Scherf, 2022; Newman et al., 2011). While autistic students have demonstrated achievement in examination grades and academic writing skills, challenges for these students lie in navigating new social relationships, problem-solving in real-world contexts, living independently, transitioning to new academic and non-academic spaces, advocating for their needed accommodations, including the decision to self-disclose, seeking and gaining support, and problem-solving skills (Lambe et al., 2019; Shattuck et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2015).

Making and Maker Culture in STEM Education as a Medium to Develop Strength-Based Programs for Autistic Adolescents

Maker programs in informal and sometimes formal educational environments create a “…context[s] where individuals or groups produce digital and or tangible objects and, at the same time, engage in the design process when planning, testing, implementing, and assessing different solutions for the problem at hand” (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017; Vuopala, 2020). The maker culture in the educational field has taken many forms, including design technologies like 3D printing, robotics, programming, artificial intelligence, and arts (Ozis et al., 2018; Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017; Vuopala et al., 2020). Moreover, these programs highlight learning through doing and creating a tangible artifact, using problem-based learning and phenomena-based learning principles that the Next Generation Learning Standards increasingly highlight as valuable (Craddock, 2015; Hughes & Kumpulainen, 2021). Maker programs also provide opportunities for participants to solve complex design problems and learn technical language creativity, communication, self-management, and critical thinking skills (Ringland et al., 2017).

Makerspaces have generally been viewed as highly collaborative contexts that promote autonomy through flexible structures where students can pursue their interests and enhance their strengths (Martin et al., 2020; Vuopala et al., 2020). However, the freedom and autonomy afforded by these maker spaces enhance students’ capacities to engage in their creative process to build unique and innovative products or solutions (Somnath et al., 2016). Making is distinct from formal instruction because it promotes learning through doing. By co-constructing designs, a unique dynamic between teachers and students develops where teachers share their power to democratize the learning process, thus developing a rich ethos where students can learn complex ideologies at a self-directed pace (Vuopala et al., 2020)). Expanding on this, Ringland et al. (2017) advocate for the development and enhancement of physical and digital spaces that focus on collaborative co-designing and co-existence.

Lately, the maker club framework is increasingly being adopted by afterschool programs to bridge the “engagement gap” by exposing students, especially those from underrepresented communities to STEM competencies and values, providing them with a constructive environment to expand their interests and curiosity with a flexible curriculum that comprehensively exposes them to novel experiences (Philp & Gill, 2020). Among underrepresented minority students, maker programs for autistic students are currently increasing and are delivered as afterschool clubs (Martin et al., 2020), camps, and workshops (Cominsky et al., 2022; Diener et al., 2016; Kaboski et al., 2015) and in museums and other non-academic spaces (Chen et al., 2021; Hartman, 2018; Martin et al., 2020). We describe our inclusive afterschool program for middle-school autistic and non-autistic students in the next section.

The IDEAS (Inventing, Design, and Engineering for All Students) Maker Program

To address the need to support autistic students in STEM learning, we developed the IDEAS Maker Program with the National Science Foundation (Martin et al., 2019). This extracurricular afterschool program cultivates students’ STEM competencies through making, tinkering, designing, and building tangible artifacts. This project was intended to bring strength and interest-based designing and programming to students with diverse needs, learning styles, and socioeconomic backgrounds (Martin et al., 2020). Other studies conducted by our research team reported findings demonstrating that the IDEAS Maker Program benefited autistic and non-autistic students (Chen et al., 2021; Martin et al., 2019; 2020). Advantages were noted in areas of competency building in the use of technology and engineering skills, use of interests for social skill development and enhancement, community building, and use of the engineering design process (EDP) to solve problems (Chen et al., 2021; Martin et al., 2020).

Theoretical Framework

The IDEAS Maker Program and the related studies were grounded in the philosophies of Constructionism (Papert & Harel, 1991) and Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Constructionism adds the element of building knowledge structures physically or ideologically using critical reflection and social dialogue to enhance the knowledge about that artifact (Papert, 1998). These values develop students’ abilities to learn “how to learn” (Rob & Rob, 2018) as they expose them to an engineering mindset, collaborative designing, creative endeavors, and sharing their creations with peers and facilitators (Murthi & Patten, 2023).

We used principles from Constructionism to design the core component of the maker club, which involves students engaging in the actual production of a tangible object (e.g., their projects like 3D printed objects, robots, and LED circuits). After gaining knowledge through teacher and peer facilitation, club sessions provided students time, space, and resources to develop individual projects. This allowed students to think deeply, make hypotheses, brainstorm about their projects with peers, and test their projects to see if they fit the design criteria. In this way, we envisioned learning to be active, engaging, contextual, and a process of knowledge construction rather than passive accumulation of data about engineering and making (Papert & Harel, 1991). We valued and welcomed students’ past experiences related to engineering, making, and other science subjects by providing space and promoting their autonomy. Every student was encouraged to pursue engineering projects that interested them in areas of familiarity.

The IDEAS program also integrated values from Self Determination Theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2002) as a conceptual framework. This framework articulates the different types of motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic, and their roles in individuals’ social and emotional development (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Intrinsic motivation promotes an individual’s engagement in activities that interest them, thus leading them to mastery of concepts and competency of skills (Patten-Koenig, 2019). When activities that promote self-determined motivation are fostered, students also develop autonomy. Also, environments that scaffold the development of these skills create a sense of belonging (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Informed by this framework, we developed club environments that are safe, nurturing, and promote deep learning. Also, we facilitated peer engagement by fostering their interests, enabling them to gain mastery, and empowering them to become autonomous. Students developed a sense of belonging in these environments through constant brainstorming and collaboration.

The learning in the IDEAS program is guided by the engineering design process (EDP) (see Fig. 1), which is a cyclical problem-solving approach with seven steps, including defining a problem, finding resources, brainstorming ideas to finding possible solutions, developing the prototype of a solution, testing and improving it until the design meets the requirements of the learner, and finally sharing the design with peers (Dym, 1994; Engineering Design Process n.d.; Gardiner & Iarocci, 2018; Householder & Hailey, 2012). As iteration is a fundamental element of the EDP, making errors is considered a learning opportunity, and failure is normalized (Lottero-Perdue & Parry, 2017). Using values of Constructionism along with the EDP helps students to immerse themselves in “doing” and gain deep knowledge of this iterative process.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Engineering design process

Full size image

Written permission was obtained from the authors.

Specifically, this study was developed to answer these questions:

  1. i.

    How did students explore and engage with the STEM activities in the IDEAS Maker Program?

  2. ii.

    What were students’ and teachers’ STEM experiences as they participated in the IDEAS Maker Program?

Methods

Research Context

All the partners and stakeholders (teachers, researchers, and project staff) underwent training from autism experts and expert makers from a local museum to understand the core needs of the IDEAS maker project. Three school principals from public schools across a large urban city in the Northeast were interviewed in-depth to understand the needs of their schools and then recruited in 2018–2019 to participate in the IDEAS Maker Program. Furthermore, the program was designed to have teachers facilitate sessions rather than have researchers or museum educators running the clubs. It valued the skills that an experienced teacher could bring to the experience. Our program was also reviewed and supported by an external stakeholder committee led by an autistic self-advocate. The IDEAS curriculum was designed with twelve different maker and engineering activities (see Table 1 for details) to develop foundational tinkering and engineering skills using technology, such as 3D printing and TinkerCAD, LED circuits, motors, and the EDP. While each activity was created as an independent task, students could integrate and blend them into their final projects, which acted as the last component of the maker club each semester. The curriculum inspired students to infuse their interests and passions into programming, designing, and making. The focus of the maker club was to boost autistic interests by providing a safe environment for students to enhance their skills rather than focusing on their challenges to normalize those behaviors.

Table 1 The IDEAS maker curriculum
Full size table

As students followed the curriculum, a blended learning approach was used with hands-on activities, teacher-led learning units, and real-life problem-solving. The EDP acted as the core foundational component for guiding students through the process as it is visual. Students were scaffolded in the goal setting, planning, problem-solving, improvisation, and follow-up processes. Students could skip a step or repeat the cycle bidirectionally throughout the making process. Also, students got opportunities to problem-solve autonomously and through collaborative peer-mediated learning. Through these opportunities, students developed their executive functions, like working memory, self-regulation, and cognitive flexibility, by thinking about their projects from different perspectives and solving real-life challenges to complete them using the EDP. For example, students worked on their prototypes and refined them throughout the clubs, constructing new knowledge and testing it as they revised it. Through this process, these students experienced feelings of failure and success viscerally when their prototypes failed and used this failure to build on and improvise their designs.

Researchers’ Positionality

The first two authors were international doctoral students (at the time of this study) and participated in developing the codebook, refining it, and analyzing the data. As pediatric occupational therapists, both authors had exposure to working with autistic children and adolescents in their cultural contexts. Both authors were trained under the medical model paradigm, which delineates autism as a “disorder” or a condition that requires treatment (Botha et al., 2022). However, mentoring from their advisor, coursework, and working with autistic self-advocates exposed them to the Neurodiversity Movement (Singer, 2017), which expanded their understanding of autism as a cognitive and social difference. They used this knowledge to confront their biases and to use it as a starting point to discover and uncover new perspectives using genuine curiosity (Way, 2011). The third author is the principal investigator of this program and has extensive expertise as a research scientist at a large independent research institution. Their personal life experiences of having neurodiverse family members, along with their expertise as a leading research expert in education and autism, were reflected in the program development, data collection, data analysis, support to graduate students, and curriculum development with a team of engineers, museum experts, and occupational therapists. The data was collected by the third author, who engaged in deep immersion in the field sites to ensure the rigor and quality of the collected data. The fourth researcher is a developmental psychologist who trained and used prior research experiences with autistic young adults in the data collection process and used this perspective to shape their positionality. The fifth researcher is a subject matter expert in autism and a co-principal investigator of this program. They advised on every aspect of program development using three decades of experience as an occupational therapist and an expert ally.

Data Collection Approaches

Participants

Our participants included (1) twenty-six students (seventeen autistic students and nine non-autistic students), (2) thirteen parents of autistic students who participated in the maker program, and (3) nine teachers (two teachers left their schools after year one and two new teachers joined in their place over 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 school years). Students in the maker clubs were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) by school psychologists in the New York Department of Education. Students were at or above grade level in verbal language skills, intellectual abilities, and academic functioning. More about student demographics is provided in (see Table 2 for more details). We obtained Institutional Review Board approval from participating research institutions and school districts and sought informed consent from all participating families.

Table 2 Student demographics
Full size table

Student One-on-One and Group Interviews.

Our team conducted seventeen interviews with the twenty-six students either one-on-one basis or in a group format to understand their perspectives, experiences of engaging with the EDP, describing their final projects, and their experiences of actively participating in maker clubs, their knowledge of STEM, and their potential career interests. The interviews followed a conversational protocol, picked students’ cues, and explored them further. Interviews lasted anywhere from four to fifteen minutes. All student interviews were set after carefully considering logistics, including bus timing, availability before/after school or during break time in some instances, and after coordinating with parents and teachers. All school policies were followed for finding interview space, and we adhered to the above-mentioned strategies to prevent students from missing other academic work. Students were allowed to participate in individual or group interviews (generally with two students). During 2018, our questions were more exploratory in nature. They primarily followed students’ experiences, while in the year 2019, we conducted focus groups with specific and targeted questions about STEM experiences and challenges. Sample questions are provided in Table 3.

Table 3 Questions that guided our semi-structured interviews
Full size table

Teacher Focus Groups

We conducted focus groups with teachers at two points (mid-year and end of the program) during each school year to understand their perspectives and experiences while facilitating and administering the program. First, two mid-year interviews (one each year with all the teachers) were conducted during a professional development workshop to understand their experiences and incorporate their suggestions into the maker clubs for the following school year. These interviews lasted for an average of eighty minutes. This was followed by the researchers conducting end-of-year teacher focus groups with each school individually yearly; hence, six end-of-year focus groups were conducted. During these focus groups, teachers expanded on their experiences, shared their knowledge about the clubs and the activities, and presented their ideas about club improvement by discussing their challenges and success stories. The researcher teams requested specific examples from the teachers when they spoke about student problem-solving, their engagement in STEM, and other outcomes like social support. The end-of-year focus groups extended anywhere between thirty-five and seventy minutes.

Parent Interviews

We interviewed eight parents and conducted three focus groups with ten parents (six fathers and five mothers) of autistic students and one parent of a non-autistic student. These interviews and focus groups were conducted at the end of the maker club after the final showcase to understand parents’ perceptions of STEM exposure in this program, their perceptions of their children’s experiences with STEM, and the value of STEM education in this program. The duration of the interviews was between five and twenty minutes.

Other Forms of Data Collection

Our research team-maintained field notes and observation logs during each session, and we collected 149 logs over the course of two years of maker clubs. These observations were exploratory during the first year and more structured in the second year and focused on using the EDP, student interactions, and pursuit of interests. We also collected twenty-five teacher implementation logs. These records included teachers’ perspectives about the activities and their interactions with the students when each activity was introduced. Both these forms of supplemental data were used for triangulation and audit trails.

Codebook Development

The first and second authors developed a codebook (see Table 4 for details about the codebook) through rigorous and deep immersion in data. We developed data-led codes and themes shared with the team for approval. Our research team engaged in comprehensive discussions to settle on codes and definitions in the codebook. Subsequently, the first and second authors independently coded 15% of the interview data to assess inter-coder reliability. Achieving a coding agreement of 93%, the two coders addressed any discrepancies through continuous and thorough discussions throughout the coding process along with detailed memoing. For example, authors 1 and 2 resolved a disagreement and deleted the code “enjoying STEM activities” by merging it with “active participation in STEM learning” code as most students who enjoyed STEM activities were engaging actively in these activities at home or in other informal learning environments. Suggestions from other members were integrated, and codes and themes were merged, added, or deleted enabling us to establish triangulation and transparency in the data analysis. Once the intercoder agreement was established, the rest of the data was coded independently by the first two authors, generating themes from the code clusters. Codes were revised and integrated into themes. Data from teacher logs and pictures supplemented interview data and was used as scaffolds.

Table 4 Overview of themes and subthemes in this study (Codebook)
Full size table

Data Analysis

Qualitative thematic analysis was used to analyze data by adopting a discovery-led approach to gain novel insights and answer our research questions. All audio recordings (interviews and focus groups) were transcribed and converted into text files before analysis. Pictures were labeled with student ID numbers and stored. Teacher and researcher logs and records were kept in separate folders as textual files. Once all the files were transcribed, analysis was conducted by the first and second authors using an iterative inductive-deductive approach. Braun and Clark’s (2006) thematic analysis framework was incorporated, which contained six steps to interpret novel patterns in the data and answer our research questions. Table 4 provides information about how we developed codes and themes.

Results

Our thematic analysis led to these four sub-themes under two overarching themes. The themes specifically answer our research questions.

Q1. How did students explore and engage with STEM activities in the IDEAS Maker Program?

The theme “active learning and curiosity development” answered this question, and it consists of two sub-themes:

  1. 1.

    Active participation in STEM learning

  2. 2.

    Curiosity about STEM topics, concepts, and practices

Q2. What were students’ and teachers’ STEM experiences as they participated in the IDEAS Maker Program?

The theme, “capacity building and understanding value of STEM,” answered this question. It comprises two sub-themes:

  1. 1.

    Developing the capacity to engage in STEM learning

  2. 2.

    Understanding the importance of STEM education in daily life

STEM-Related Outcomes and Experiences

Students were exposed to engineering concepts and ideas as they moved through the twelve sessions of the IDEAS curriculum. Teachers created a visual representation of the EDP process as they encountered challenges in their projects. Also, it was used to guide students to move through the design process systematically and enabled them to problem-solve independently. The theme yielded the following sub-themes:

Active Participation in STEM Learning

A crucial outcome of this program was the active participation of students in STEM-related projects outside the maker club context. Many students engaged in projects of interest and concurrently indulged in design projects at home. In this way, they expanded their knowledge and skills in STEM. As Tom, a student on the autism spectrum, explained his engagement in designing and building outside the maker club context, he shared, “I made a Bluetooth light-up speaker out of an Altoids case.” He further explained that the maker club allowed him to engage in projects that interested him.

The freedom it allows. Whenever I join this kind of program, it says we will make an iPhone case like that [like a model]. Then you have to copy whatever they did. [This program] allows you to have the freedom to do whatever you want.

Students also enjoyed creating projects that enabled them to develop real-world artifacts like games and figurines. Expanding on the number of opportunities and possibilities for designing provided in the maker club, Owen recollected his “good” experience of using the opportunities in the club to design and create different possibilities, which enabled him to stay actively engaged in STEM. He explained, “It is a really good experience for me, and I can create many different things. That can show people not only with disabilities but people just people, can be creative and do interesting designs.” Owen’s description of his experiences also underscores the importance of the maker club’s inclusive, safe, and supportive environment, which encourages all students with diverse needs and capabilities to create and engage in STEM through their creations. The focus was on students’ creations and designs rather than their abilities or neurotype, which boosted active participation in these clubs. A non-autistic student, John, explained his experiences working around diversions and completing projects of interest at home due to his active and continued engagement in STEM activities outside the maker club. He proudly explained how he organized and managed time and his ability to persevere and complete his building project.

I am proud of my Statue of Liberty because it has been hard work. Getting through with my little brothers and sisters (bothering me). I made a statue of liberty that can walk at my aunt’s job. I made a whole city there with a motor and a sign so[that] people will not walk on it.

Even parents noted their children’s involvement in extracurricular STEM activities, including activities where they had no prior experience. Fred’s parents explained that his son, on the spectrum, was engaged in drawing grids of golf courses, which was an interest area despite Fred not playing golf in real life. They added that he would actively learn and draw structural maps at home.

He drew a lot of different mini-golf courses. During this year. So[he will] be a golf course designer like some of those pros. He just likes structural grids. He likes street maps, he could apply [his knowledge] from there.

Moreover, Fred’s teachers echoed similar thoughts about his passion for completing his projects at home and even during lunchtime at school. His teacher admired his persistence and ability to stay focused on the project.

Nobody even suggested that to them. He just did that. He came to my lunch club together, and he [brought a] thing in the bag that he did that at home. He took a bunch of those straws and some cardboard, but he found some of his own cardboard, and he did that. He brought it back the next week. He did maker stuff at home.

Students’ active participation arose from their curiosity about STEM topics.

Curiosity About STEM Topics, Concepts, and Practices

Students learned math (by measuring their designs and translating measurements into TinkerCAD and printing them on the 3D printer), designing (learning about motors and circuits), technology (software like TinkerCAD, 3D printing), and science concepts (learning about abstract concepts like physics, thermodynamics, and electricity) as they followed their interests and passions while making during the maker club’s facilitation sessions with their teachers. An autistic student shared that the engineering mindset could be developed by “…put[ting] the scientific method to test and improving upon designs of something that we create.” Krishnamurthi et al. (2014) described this as active information seeking due to the vibrant and dynamic nature which leads to STEM concept mastery. Three students on the spectrum, Liam, Oliver, and Will, were engaged in a deep discussion about motors and batteries during LED circuit projects with their teacher. This interaction expanded beyond circuits, including motors and machines, and enabled them to build social relationships by developing inclusive peer-to-peer connection building.

Teacher: “What is a motor?” Liam- “It is like a thing in cars and in other technology, too.” Oliver- “I think that a motor is a moving part; motors are used for cars when it starts and drives it; it has energy when turned on.” Teacher: “Where else can we see them?” Oliver- “In factories, in motor factories in drones.” Teacher- “Where else, Will? It is something you have been talking about all day. Will- “Planes.”

Curiosity about STEM enabled students to discuss abstract concepts like ultraviolet light, nuclear fusion, and lithium batteries, which stemmed from the LED circuit activity. A few students on the spectrum discussed engineering concepts when they learned about the EDP by wondering and asking questions.

Teacher: Think about what is an engineer, and where did you hear it? Mark: Someone who designs something and makes something. John: I think [it] is someone [who] creates robots and inventions. Bill: [someone who] creates..it can be different kinds, computers, building, they make stuff. John: Engineers are like people that, say, someone’s computer’s broken and he fixes it.

Furthermore, students connected the EDP with innovations made in engineering. They used their curiosity to learn and build new devices. For example, an autistic maker demonstrated their problem-solving ability by describing the improvisation of the EDP cycle, “I made a fidget spinner. I pinched the Play-Doh to make it higher. It is the perfect height. It is my first time using a glue gun, and it was successful.” Teachers described students’ abilities to develop their curiosity and demonstrate proficiency in understanding the difference between 2 and 3D concepts and their ability to grasp the workings of TinkerCAD. One teacher commented on their independent tinkering skills.

Teacher: When you are kind of teaching them the fundamentals or basics of TinkerCAD, with these few fundamentals, there is no way they will understand what is going on. And then all of a sudden, [student name] comes in with, like, a designed rocket ship. Okay, well, I guess they did get it. So, it is cool to see how much they can do in the space.

Developing a Capacity to Engage in STEM Learning

Krishnamurthi et al. (2014) emphasized that encouraging involvement in STEM activities positions students to engage in lifelong STEM learning and prepares them to understand the value of STEM in real-world contexts. Students demonstrated a deep knowledge of engineering processes using 3D printers to print their projects. They made project iterations to prevent overhangs in their designs. When they shared this knowledge with peers, they demonstrated mastery in a subject area by building a complex design or engaging in EDP independently to solve design challenges. Richard, a student on the spectrum, exhibited a deep knowledge of 3D printing as he explained how he prevented overhangs while printing his projects.

I did because some of [my designs] would be a little difficult to 3D print. So, I decided to make them multiple—together and then separate. I made them together, but when I realized that I had to make some changes, I made them, and I feel like the changes will help me 3D print it better. Because I know how the 3D printer works. It would be a little difficult to do stuff like with a hollow bottom, but I ended up fixing that easily.

Using STEM knowledge, students explored ways to convert their ideas into complete designs and tangible products. For example, a student described their interest in creating games and developing a story into a game with mechanics. In this situation, they used their knowledge of STEM to develop their game.

The game is a game where there is a farm, and there is a bunch of characters, and there is also a villain. The farm is where the main characters are at first, and then what they do is they have a truck to get stuff to people there and to get stuff there.

Teachers encouraged students to use engineering and design-specific language when using the EDP to guide their facilitation sessions. Every activity in the curriculum commenced with students identifying problems, brainstorming, and collaborating with their peers and teachers to build their prototypes. One researcher observed students discussing their plans.

Student: We had an idea: we need to make a bot.

Teacher: What is the next step?

Student: We make a plan. Did we make a prototype? Did it fail? Did we test it again and improve it? YES, and now it is moving.

While demonstrating an autistic student’s (Jayden) proficiency and knowledge of the EDP language, a teacher shared their experience,

Teacher: Yeah, I think Jayden is very familiar with it [EDP]…[When I ask], “Okay, Jayden, what are you doing?” And just talking to him, and he just looks at me, he goes, “, I have to identify the problem and brainstorm my idea.” And I was like, “Jayden, you are absolutely right.” And he goes, “Identify the problem and brainstorm ideas. I need to make a plan. I need to make a plan.

However, in some instances, teachers noted that students did not use engineering-specific language but still demonstrated comprehension of engineering concepts through their designing process. For example, the same teacher shared that students in the previous year were learning to label the EDP concepts.

Teacher: Last year, we needed to work more on helping them label. Because they are doing these things, and they are always doing it, especially with the bots, especially with the circuits. They are going through iteration, often, but they do not label it.

Students also used their STEM knowledge to engage in abstract, critical thinking, and revision of their projects through peer collaboration and engagement. This process enabled students to iterate and complete their projects to answer their design needs. Mitch, a student on the spectrum, incorporated critical thinking to design a “calendar clock, cardboard, with a glide bar so that it can show the date and year.” Moreover, this mindset also propelled their ideation skills as teachers noted that some students naturally developed ideas. Being in the maker space, they could share those ideas with their peers to collaboratively develop projects.

We had some kids who—they are just so natural. They just have it in them, and it is just waiting to be tapped. And when you have kids like that in your group, it creates excitement for all the kids. And we had some collaboration, which is—I love that when they work together.

Understanding the Importance of STEM Education in Daily Life

The maker club curriculum supported students in engaging in their interests and developing tangible products that were meaningful to them. Robert, an autistic student, made a gift for his mother using TinkerCAD. He explained, “This one will be my mom’s initials. Because my mom had asked me to do that, I feel she cannot wait anymore.” Ana, a non-autistic student, explained how she used this opportunity to make an LED card to “give it to my sister so she could give it to her crush.” When she lost that opportunity, she adapted her plan to “eventually just gave it to her [sister] for Valentine’s Day. Like, I love you, my sister. Here is a card.”

Students also thought of innovative solutions. Ellen, an autistic student, created “a stand for her phone that she can use when she records YouTube videos with her sister,” a researcher reported. Furthermore, students suggested adaptations to existing designs for different contexts or purposes. For example, a student discussed a helicopter blade and motors during the maker club facilitation session and suggested: “…attach a whisk to it [helicopter instead of a blade], for cooking?” Students also used their experiences in the maker club to build foundational knowledge for future career interests. A non-autistic student, Harry, explained that he would use the experiences from the maker club, especially the foundational knowledge about circuits, to gain a technical understanding of electricity in the future. He said, “So I kinda want to know the basics at least we are doing now, circuits and all that. So, then I could build upon that.”

Discussion

Our study examined the collective experiences of students, parents, and teachers as they participated in interest-based informal afterschool STEM clubs. This study specifically focused on understanding student engagement and STEM learning outcomes from this program. We learned that all students actively engaged in STEM learning, even outside the maker clubs, as their learning was deeply rooted in curiosity and interests. This outcome aligns with other studies where interest-based activities improved autistic students’ engagement and facilitated more profound learning experiences (Grove et al., 2016; Harrop et al., 2019; Patten-Koenig & Hough-Williams, 2017). More accurately, our results exemplify that the open-ended nature of maker clubs differed from the structured in-school activities and rigid context, thus allowing students to learn and apply novel engineering concepts in an inclusive, safe, and nurturing environment (Martin, 2019; 2020). A unique contribution of this study is that it captures students’ experiences of engaging in their curiosities in STEM subjects, specifically in engineering, to apply their knowledge and develop designs in a real-world context. We also learned that students developed prerequisites to learn and master STEM concepts, problem-solving, and engineering skills by understanding the importance of STEM in daily life. In the next section, we discuss our specific findings on how students develop capacities for engineering learning. We also share our insights on student experiences in the club, the application of engineering concepts and knowledge, and their use of the EDP to learn problem-solving. We also present challenges and limitations that were encountered in facilitating these clubs.

Active Learning and Curiosity Development

Students had the autonomy to complete their projects from the maker clubs at home. While some students completed their projects at home, others used their time to delve deeper into making and pursued out-of-maker club STEM projects that stemmed from their interests. All students developed time management, self-regulation, and critical thinking skills while autonomously working on their projects outside the clubs. The clubs propelled them to explore new interests or expand existing interests and knowledge by facilitating them to develop drawing and sketching skills or building actual products. This outcome aligns with several studies where autistic adolescents could pursue their interests and develop deep knowledge and understanding in interest areas (Bianco et al., 2009; Bross & Travers, 2017; Davey, 2020; Diener et al., 2016; Dunst et al., 2011; Gaudion et al., 2015; Kaboski et al., 2015; Lanou et al., 2012; Martin, 2020; Trivette & Dunst, 2011; Winter-Messiers, 2007; Wood, 2019).

Moreover, teachers noted that this enthusiastic engagement in STEM enabled them to persist through design challenges and accomplish projects with pride, determination, and self-efficacy, as evident in our other studies (Martin 2020; Chen 2021). In this way, active immersion in STEM outside the club context also helped students develop curiosity in STEM-related subjects like science and mathematics. Krishnamurthi et al. (2014) attest that engaging in STEM learning further increases students’ interest and curiosity to participate in other STEM activities. Our study expanded this outcome by uniquely sharing lived experiences from a historically marginalized community through accounts.

Teachers encouraged this curiosity by introducing engineering terms, using the EDP to teach design-based problem-solving skills, connecting engineering concepts with related mathematical and scientific concepts, and developing an “engineering mindset.” Collaborative brainstorming and an open-ended inquiry process in the clubs facilitated “deep dive” conversations among student peers to explore their interests comprehensively. Students pursued curiosity and often tinkered with software or wooden blocks to create sophisticated designs. By viewing a design challenge from multiple vantage points, they could flexibly move between analyzing their strategies by focusing on a single intricate part or holistically. Students also used this opportunity to learn at home or in other contexts by actively reading books and blogs to engage with topics of interest deeply. In this way, they honed their curiosity in engineering by connecting it with multiple scientific disciplines. This outcome aligned with the study conducted by Lottero-Purdue and Lachapelle (2020), who demonstrated that productive engagement in engineering activities using the EDP propels students’ abilities to develop a growth mindset or capacity to accept failure positively and use it to expand their skills. Some of our students, like Richard, indicated that although they faced challenges with their project, like finding it hard to 3D print, they could engage in the EDP process and successfully find a way to complete it.

Capacity Building and Understanding Value of STEM

The Afterschool STEM Outcomes Study indicated that afterschool STEM programs develop critical skills in informal learning spaces (Krishnamurti et al., 2014). The IDEAS program reflected this outcome and demonstrated how the students learned STEM concepts and immersed themselves in problem-solving using the EDP while developing and making their designs. We also noticed that participation in maker clubs boosted students’ ability to productively engage in the school curriculum as they demonstrated competency in STEM knowledge. These results were similar to other studies as they illustrated improved problem-solving, technical, debating, and reflecting skills (Galaleldin et al., 2017; Sheridan et al., 2014). Students in our study also learned to incorporate engineering-specific terminologies. They adopted investigative skills by testing their prototypes using the EDP. They also exhibited technological competency in using software like Tinker CAD and 3D printers while independently creating their designs. They problem-solved using an “engineering mindset” by analyzing the minute details of their designs while fitting these designs into their overarching vision of the project (Greene & Papalambros, 2016). Using the EDP, students could move flexibly between its stages to test, iterate, and improvise their projects, thus finishing final tangible products that matched their design vision.

Furthermore, students developed systematic approaches to convert their interest in a topic and their conceptual knowledge by applying strategies to convert an idea into a design or a project, thus making connections to real-world challenges. In the review by Rusmann and Ejsing-Duun (2022), the authors underscore the importance of developing students’ abductive reasoning skills or abilities to envision a hypothesis from a guess and concretize the problem and its solution. In this way, facilitating students to use their abductive reasoning can lead to them developing innovation skills as they understand the different characteristics of the problem and the solution (Noel and Liub (2017). Students in our club learned to draw parallels between abstract engineering concepts, theoretical ideas, and different subject matter like chemistry and mathematics to combine, innovate, and create solutions in the real world. For example, students developed projects to gift their family members unique like 3D printed names for their mother, LED cards, a phone holder, and a helicopter with whisks for mixing ingredients. This enabled them to develop a sense of pride and ownership in their work.

Limitations and Challenges

While our study presented the positive effects of developing an inclusive maker club program for middle-school students, the results are impacted by some challenges. Our intention in establishing this unique study was the understanding that the results would be context-specific with potential challenges in transferability. Firstly, our program included autistic students with grade-level academic and fluent verbal skills, making it challenging to transfer the results to other contexts or autistic students with differing support needs. Secondly, the teachers who facilitated the maker clubs received extra training and support from museum professionals, educational researchers, and occupational therapists who conducted regular professional development programs and provided support and thus might not transfer to other contexts. Thirdly, this was a voluntary club program, so students who were interested in engineering participated. Furthermore, when students demonstrated frustration or challenges while completing engineering projects or understanding STEM concepts, they were supported by occupational therapists, maker experts, and special education teachers. This aspect could pose a challenge in other contexts where support levels differ.

Conclusion and Implications

An essential contribution of this study is the extensive presentation of first-hand experiences of autistic and non-autistic students as they participated in an engineering afterschool maker club. Specifically, this study focused on exploring, understanding, and showcasing their engineering experiences, an area of interest for these students. Students demonstrated active engagement in their projects, demonstrated curiosity in learning novel ideas and applying them in real-world situations, problem-solving, gained engineering knowledge, knew technical terminologies, and understood the value of STEM in everyday life. These results can be incorporated by teachers and other professionals like special educators and occupational therapists to other programs where interest-driven activities could be used to help develop STEM skills. This study also has implications for museums and other non-academic spaces to develop inclusive maker programs with various science and art-related subjects. We also created an open curriculum (link to be added if the manuscript is accepted for publication) that can be modeled in parts or whole in other non-academic spaces. Programs can also be run with education experts like occupational therapists and special educators. Finally, showcasing students’ work before parents and the community could serve as an awareness and dissemination strategy where autistic adolescents’ strengths and abilities are highlighted.

Our theoretical framework is unique because it combines elements of Constructionism, which advocates for learning through action, with the Self-Determination Theory. It adds the role of motivation and its impact on students’ autonomy and competency development. Also, it emphasizes the effect of a positive, supporting environment on learning. Moreover, this study highlights the importance of using the EDP, which improves problem-solving in students as they learn to engage in interest-driven activities. This framework could be transferred to other research and theory-building studies. The EDP can be used as a problem-solving strategy by other professionals working with students, like occupational therapists, or as a class strategy by teachers. Future research must focus on students’ experiences with problem-solving, facing challenges and failure to address the acute need and value of adolescent STEM programs. Despite above-mentioned challenges from this study, especially student frustration, the program augmented students’ deeper understanding and engagement in engineering activities through doing engineering tasks.

This opportunity enabled us to extend informal engineering education to a diverse group of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who otherwise might not have access to afterschool STEM learning. Furthermore, we included students on the spectrum and could learn from their experiences, perspectives, and capabilities about their approaches to engage with their interests. Students actively engaged in topics that piqued their curiosity, were deeply engaged with our maker curriculum, learned the dialect associated with STEM and engineering, demonstrated critical thinking self-regulation, and developed an “engineering mindset.” Peer-mediated learning boosted students’ socialization, STEM values, and making skills. Enhancing students’ passions with resources and expertise enabled them to build on their existing knowledge actively.