INTRODUCTION

STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Maths) education is a new educational competency model that emphasises the theorisation and integration of the arts in learning in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, often grouped under the acronym STEM (Aguilera & Ortiz-Revilla, 2021). This model stands out because it is committed to teaching and learning processes through transdisciplinarity (White & Delaney, 2021). As it is closely rooted in maker education (Jia et al., 2021), it seeks to guarantee the acquisition of transversal knowledge, in which the contents of each of these fields are not worked on in isolation, but in an interdisciplinary way in order to ensure competent, functional, contextualised, and meaningful learning. The commitment to this approach has resulted in the incorporation of new teaching resources such as e-textiles, which, similarly to educational robotics due to their multidisciplinary nature, are effective in preparing teachers to integrate computer science and computational thinking into the curriculum (Fields et al., 2019). For this reason, we consider it essential to incorporate maker skills in initial and continuous teacher training (Valente & Blikstein, 2019). As demonstrated in the E-STITCH program, e-textiles are put forward as one of the key factors for STEAM subjects to operate at the same level (Tofel-Grehl et al., 2021; Tofel-Grehl et al., 2022). This program, led by US teachers Colby Tofel-Grehl and Kristin Searle (2023), who are leaders in the field of e-textiles applied to university education, is an example of a growing trend of incorporating this methodology in university classrooms.

E-textiles are textiles that have embedded digital and electronic components (Buechley et al., 2008). Researchers such as Buechley et al. (2013) and Jayathirtha and Kafai (2020) point out that carrying out e-textile projects is an effective way of educating in STEAM and developing skills from an early age. In the results of their meta-synthesis of 64 papers over a decade of e-textiles, 8 of which are included in our study, Jayathirtha and Kafai state that e-textiles constitute an exciting and promising field for equitable participation and broadening access to computer science education. They conclude that it is necessary to advocate for more in-depth research to determine the opportunities they provide for students to access the field of computer science. Buechley et al. (2013) provide empirical evidence of the benefits of using e-textiles in education and how e-textile construction kits are reshaping technology education.

At this time of expansion of maker education, it is of interest to examine the effectiveness of e-textiles in arousing curiosity for scientific and technological subjects at an early age. In this paper, a systematic literature review is provided, examining the use of e-textiles as an educational resource to support STEAM learning in students aged 6 to 13. In order to meet this goal, the following research questions were made:

• Which STEAM areas are worked on through e-textiles, and using which technologies?
• What methodological approaches are used to integrate e-textiles in primary education?
• In what contexts is e-textile learning addressed for students aged 6-13?

BACKGROUND

E-textiles in the context of the maker movement

Electronic textiles or e-textiles are "fabric artefacts that include embedded computers and other electronic devices " (Peppler, 2013, p. 38). The creation of these artefacts is associated with the field of wearable technologies, which has traditionally been reserved for scientists, textile engineers, health professionals, and pioneers in the arts and fashion design (Ryan, 2014). This multidisciplinary field stems from 1990s research in the field of interaction design applied to wearables, and it is characterised by the use of new flexible, conductive, and smart materials, by means of which highly visual and aesthetic results can be achieved (Berzowska, 2005; Orth et al., 1998). The creation of these artefacts brings together engineering and computing to create computers that are "soft, colourful, accessible, and beautiful " (Buechley et al., 2013, p.1), allowing for the possibility of combining art and creative expression with engineering, delving into knowledge domains such as programming, manual work, and electronics (Kafai et al., 2019).

This field was complex and inaccessible until the late 1990s, but around 2006 the emergence of the maker movement and the Do it Yourself (DIY) philosophy made its democratisation possible (Posch & Fitzpatrick, 2021; Perner-Wilson & Buechley, 2013). Maker culture emerged in the United States and became popular globally through Maker Faires (Dougherty, 2013). Makers (Hatch, 2014) carry out activities that consist of creating objects in both physical and digital collaborative learning spaces, and their projects are associated with the use of 3D printers, robotics or e-textiles, among others (Anderson, 2012). Maker education advocates making (or creating/building) as a way of learning (Peppler & Bender, 2013) and stands out for contributing to the so-called 21^st-century skills (González-Pérez & Ramírez-Montoya, 2022). The roots of this movement are associated with Papert's constructionist theory (1980), and in turn, with constructivist learning theories (from classics such as Piaget, Vygotsky, and Dewey).

When developing and constructing e-textiles, electronic artefacts are created that can be wearable or that include programmable circuits or computers, which promotes learning, as a personally meaningful artefact is created (Papert & Harel, 1991). In recent years, creating digital media and learning electronics have become accessible to all audiences (Spina & Lane, 2020), making e-textiles applied to education an interesting teaching resource for STEAM education.

STEAM education with e-textiles

STEM education is based on an inclusive model that facilitates experiential learning and responds to the demands of the new millennium (Tytler, 2020; Sanders, 2009). Art was gradually integrated, in order to add a more creative and innovative perspective, thus giving rise to the term STEAM (Perignat & Katz-Buonincontro, 2019; Maeda, 2013; Yakman 2008). Among the various initiatives proposed on the basis of this educational approach, project-based learning in the context of e-textiles stands out. When considering the constructionist approach in the field of STEAM, e-textiles promise to be an important teaching resource that offers numerous possibilities for education focused on these areas (Kara & Cagiltay, 2023; Hughes & Morrison, 2018). In this regard, among other aspects, several authors have shown that the creation of e-textile artefacts benefits the development of creative and critical thinking (Lui et al., 2019; Peppler & Wohlwend, 2018) and encourages students to learn about electrical circuit concepts in a new way (Tofel-Grehl et al., 2017). Given their characteristics, various authors argue that they represent an opportunity for the expansion of computer science learning (Jayathirtha & Kafai, 2019), including elements of circuits, design thinking, and the arts, thus blurring the traditional boundaries between disciplines (Kafai et al., 2014). This field and its applications to education are identified as a key factor for working on STEAM subjects (Fields & Kafai, 2023; Peppler, 2013) and fostering computational thinking (Wing, 2006). In particular, because the incorporation of iterative design (Fields et al., 2019) provides the learning scenario for students to acquire risk-taking skills resulting in a critical-thinking basis for computational thinking.

Following Papert (1980), the fields of learning sciences and educational technology have focused on students learning by manipulating and creating digital objects. This is reflected in the use of platforms such as, for example, TurtleStitch, which allows you to embroider what you program and create projects in textiles. The projects carried out by the community represented, among others, by Margaret Low, have demonstrated their potential for students to acquire skills in design, mathematics, art, and composition ( Klimczak & Solomon, 2022). Many e-textile construction kits have emerged, offering different approaches to getting started in programming, electronics. and STEAM. The use of these kits in the classroom offers greater transparency when learning than robotics construction kits (Kafai et al., 2014). Buechley (2006) designed the LilyPad kit with the aim of broadening participation in computer science.

The LilyPad kit was designed in a similar way to the LEGO Mindstorms kit (Resnick et al., 1988) and includes a low-cost, open-source, Arduino-based programmable motherboard (Banzi, 2008), conductive thread and different sensors and actuators adapted to be easily sewable to the textile, allowing users to design and create their own e-textiles (Buechley et al., 2008). There are other similar kits such as Flora, LilyTiny or EduWear which, like LilyPad, emphasise the act of sewing the circuits and making them visible in order to give the user an understanding of programming, electronics, and circuits (Lovell et al., 2023; Schelhowe et al., 2013; Stern & Cooper, 2015). Other prefabricated kits such as i*CATch and Make Wear offer plug-and-play and are more user-friendly (Kazemitabaar et al., 2017; Ngai et al., 2013). Quilt Snaps and TeeBoard (Buechley et al., 2005; Ngai et al., 2009b) are mainly aimed at deepening the computational experience for learners. All these construction kits offer an interesting new range of tools and materials for both teachers and learners. As their educational value has been demonstrated, e-textiles have become an increasingly important competence practice, a potentially emerging field of educational research, the development of curriculum materials similar to those of educational robotics (Fields & Kafai, 2023; Hébert & Jenson, 2020) and the emergence of books with activities adapted to the American Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), designed for teachers to bring e-textiles into the classroom (Peppler, Gresalfi et al., 2014; Peppler, Salen Tekinbas et al., 2014). Following the recent implementation of the STEAM model in the classroom and in order to improve student learning, the use of e-textiles has been gradually integrated into educational contexts through the creation of learning spaces (Peppler, 2022; Martinez & Stager, 2013). As Halverson and Sheridan point out, "the great promise of the maker movement in education is to democratise access to power discourses, so that users can produce their own artefacts, especially if these artefacts are built with 21^st-century technologies" (2014, p. 502). For all these reasons, and considering the benefits that this educational resource represents in terms of scientific and technological training at an early age, it is necessary to do research into its use in education with students aged 6 to 13.

METHOD

In order to answer the research questions, a systematic literature review (SLR) of specific scientific literature (Newman & Gough, 2020) on e-textiles applied to education in the STEAM field was carried out. We used databases specific to social science research, focusing on education (Scopus, ERIC, WoS) and one specialised in computer science (ACM Digital Library), as it is of great interest as one of the reference sources for studies at the intersection of Computer Science and the Social Sciences and Humanities. The guidelines set by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis protocols) statement have been followed (Page et al., 2021).

Systematic literature review

The search strategy began with the selection of keywords in the three conceptual axes that make up the SLR carried out (Table 1).

We used reputable databases which host impact publications in order to ensure that the studies meet the standards of the scientific community, focusing on publications with full-text availability. We considered 2006 as the starting year for the systematic review due to the publication of the paper by Buechley et al. (2006) which refers to the potential of e-textiles in education. The languages of publication included were English and Spanish, two of the majority languages in the Academy.

The bibliographic records resulting from the searches of each database were exported to an Excel document. The list of articles was managed on this software, with a tab for the record of each of the databases and a tab with the global list of publications, where duplicates were manually eliminated, resulting in a total of 641 records. The selection process was based on a review of the titles and abstracts of the registered documents. According to the eligibility criteria ( Table 2), research in English addressing the use of e-textiles for STEAM learning in our study range was included; articles published outside the established period (2006-2021) were excluded. The full text was then checked for accessibility. At this point 17 papers were excluded (Figure 1).

The papers selected on the basis of the eligibility criteria were screened in the second screening stage, which removed publications where e-textiles are used as command and control technologies (e.g. smart watches, brain readers etc.), research focused on professional development and those related to e-textiles that do not focus on e-textiles. Papers that did not address e-textiles in the learning of students in the stated age range were excluded. In this stage 453 papers were excluded, resulting in 30 publications that meet the previously defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. To these, 5 papers included in a book-compilation of references in the field of e-textiles (Buechley et al., 2013) were incorporated as grey literature, resulting in 35 papers selected for content analysis (Figure 1). The papers found were reviewed by two researchers: the first author reviewed all the results, while the rest of the authors independently reviewed one third of the papers each, subsequently pooling all the assessments of each member of the research team. For those documents that raised doubts among the researchers, the analysis process was repeated.

Data mining and content analysis

The selected documents were analysed according to the three axes of the study: digital technology (e-textiles as a resource), methodological approach, and educational context, using the critical content analysis method ( Newman & Gough, 2020). Firstly, a bibliometric analysis of the scientific production included in the SLR was carried out. This analysis shows the list of authors, their geographical distribution, their year of publication, and the characteristics of research in the field of e-textiles for learning in primary education. In a second stage, the research questions generated a series of categories of analysis, including information on the hardware, software, methodology, project, educational context, and ages involved. Two individual researchers hand-coded all studies in accordance with the categories of analysis. In case of discrepancies between the researchers, coding was established through double analysis by the other researchers.

RESULTS

This section presents the results obtained from the in-depth analysis of the 35 documents included in the SLR, organised in terms of the research questions proposed.

Bibliometric analysis

The 35 scientific texts that constitute the sample of studies in the systematic review show that the year 2013 was the time when literature on e-textiles in the field of education first emerged (Figure 2a). The first paper dates from 2009, but it is from 2013 onwards that there is evidence of more regular annual publication on this topic. The data show that the United States is the country with the highest production (Figure 2b), with Kafai, Searle and Ngai being the authors with the highest production (Figure 2c). In terms of authorship, women dominate (55.1%): in 29 of the 35 papers, the main author is a woman, which shows that the subject is an area of growth in which the studies are made up of teams led by women.

In terms of methodological design, research on e-textiles in education is mainly approached through qualitative designs (61.8%), predominantly through case studies (Figure 3). It is worth noting the high number of experiences shared at conferences.

STEAM areas and technologies for working with e-textiles in primary education

The SLR shows that 75% of the projects discussed in the publications reviewed were created with an e-textile kit using a programmable board (Table 3). Of these, the LilyPad kit is the preferred kit for experiences in this field (77.8%). Drawing on the cross-referenced data derived from the meta-synthesis, such a kit is presented as an alternative to teaching educational robotics and breaks down gender or ethnic stereotypes around tools and the design of digital artefacts (Jayathirtha & Kafai, 2020). A number of the studies reviewed conclude that it helps to close the gender gap (Buechley 2010; Buechley et al., 2013; Erete et al., 2016; Keshwani et al., 2016; Lau et al., 2009; Nugent et al., 2019; Rigden et al., 2019; Kafai et al., 2014; Searle & Kafai, 2015b; Weibert et al., 2014) and to increase minority representation (Richard et al., 2018; Searle & Kafai, 2015a) in science and technology fields. The studies show that work with e-textiles in primary education favours block programming language, which is present in two thirds of the publications reviewed, especially in the last levels of primary education, mostly involving pupils aged 11 to 13 (Table 3). This result coincides with the majority of the studies reviewed in the meta-synthesis (87%) involving students aged 11 to 18.

Several studies discuss the potential of other platforms, both commercial and non-commercial, for the creation of e-textiles. Guler and Rule (2013) explore the potential of the Invent-abling kit to build analogue circuits to address gender inequality in STEM learning tools. Ananthanarayan and Boll (2020) conclude that the use of Calliope enables the creation of learning situations that foster the creative process as well as initiation into programming environments. In addition, different authors explore the educational use of plug-and-play kits that do not require sewing. These kits are designed for rapid prototyping of e-textiles and encourage iterative and exploratory learning. Koushik et al. (2017) explore the educational potential of the Snappable Sensors kit that allows for an approach to arithmetic and data analysis. Ngai et al. (2009a) design the i*CATch kit with the aim of enabling students to explore computational concepts in less time and concludes that this kit can be used at a wide range of academic levels. Schelhowe et al. (2013) present the EduWear e-textile construction kit, which proved to enable students to become more confident in dealing with technology as they were able to connect their own creations to the technologies in their environment.

The use of kits that allow the incorporation of flexible and conductive materials with the aim of designing video games and wearable controllers is also highlighted. Kafai and Vasudevan (2015) and Vasudevan et al. (2015) investigate the use of the Makey Makey kit, concluding that it offers new opportunities for learning about computational concepts and develops creative and self-expression skills. Markvicka et al. (2018) examine a low-cost kit created from commercial materials and conclude that it allows students to get started in the field of e-textiles, while offering the opportunity to use their artistic creativity within a technical context. Along these lines, we would also like to highlight the research by Lo et al. (2013), who examine the use of the educational software I*Chameleon as a multimodal interface to create e-textile projects, something that is especially interesting for the age range contemplated in this SLR. E-textiles are also used to create new learning resources - educational resources with which students can interact to promote understanding of complex concepts (Norooz et al., 2015; Peppler & Danish, 2013).

To conclude this section, we consider it necessary to look at the challenges of the 21 ^st century, which are connected to the challenges that students in our age range will face. The studies analysed show that working with e-textiles using block programming language, applying principles of engineering, circuits, and design, enhances the skills aspects of learning. STEAM subjects facilitate commitment between situations of equity, critical and responsible use of digital culture, and the appreciation of cultural diversity through the creative processes inherent in e-textiles.

Methodological approaches to integrating e-textiles in primary education

The studies reviewed show three approaches to the educational methodology used in the teaching and learning process with e-textiles (Table 4). Firstly, there are publications describing innovative experiences that awaken students' interests in scientific and technological subjects or workshops focused on following the step-by-step instructions or guides typical of Do it Yourself learning, where the result is projects that are all the same or similar because they are customised by the members of these courses (44%). This is the majority trend.

In some cases, worksheet templates are encouraged (Searle & Kafai, 2015a, 2015b) to motivate and initiate students and get them interested in carrying out personally relevant projects. Then there are options that use active methodologies (36%). Finally, there are works at an intermediate point of the continuum, which use a mixed methodology. In these, there is a first stage of an activity, with step-by-step instructions, prototypes, models, tutorials, and templates that guide the process. In some cases, even prefabricated modules are provided (Ngai et al, 2009a; Ngai, Chan, Leong et al., 2013; Ngai, Chan & Ng, 2013). Then, in a second training stage, they offer spaces for the free creation and customisation of artefacts.

Looking at the artefacts built by the students in terms of the methodological approach, most of the creations based on guided projects focused on luminous bracelets (Ball et al., 2017; Del Valle-Morales et al., 2020; Erete et al., 2016; Nugent et al., 2019; Peppler & Glosson, 2013) and interactive soft toys (Kuznetsov et al., 2011; Pedersen et al., 2020; Rode et al., 2015; Weibert et al., 2014). By contrast, projects based on active methodologies were more diverse, including mainly textile video game controllers (Kafai & Vasudevan, 2015; Lo et al., 2013; Vasudevan et al., 2015) and multiple designs of sensor, musical, and light wearables (Ananthanarayan & Boll, 2020; Buechley, 2013; Kafai et al., 2014; Schelhowe et al., 2013; Trappe, 2012).

Educational context in which e-textiles learning is approached in primary education

The results show a variety of educational ecosystems (Table 5), with non-formal education being the most recurrent in the projects analysed (71.4%). We found a large number of non-formal education studies that, despite being intentional and planned, were carried out outside the scope of compulsory schooling. After-school activities and computer clubs (44%) as well as workshops (40%) were the main contexts for non-formal educational spaces that address e-textiles with students aged 6 to 13.

If we analyse the selected papers that refer to a formal setting, there are different perspectives for their inclusion in schools. Some propose adapting e-textiles to US educational standards (Ball et al., 2017), as they support meaningful learning and facilitate the understanding of complex and abstract science concepts. Others are committed to including them within optional subjects or history and culture subjects, in a transdisciplinary way, to encourage the inclusion and participation of minorities who are less engaged with computer science. This interdisciplinary approach helps to foster a more holistic view of the world around them (Kafai et al., 2014; Nugent et al., 2019; Rigden et al., 2019; Searle & Kafai, 2015a, 2015b). Along these lines, Rigden et al. (2019) with the Femineer ™ program, and Nugent et al. (2019) with the Nebraska WearTec program, propose e-textiles as teaching resources that serve as an alternative or supplement to educational robotics with the goal of inspiring and empowering learners, and in particular girls and minorities, to pursue STEM careers.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This document provides specific information on the work carried out with students aged 6 to 13 years that uses e-textiles as an action element in activities that seek to cultivate STEAM knowledge, skills, and abilities. The study shows that practices with e-textiles for primary education have been most prevalent in the United States (63.9%), where the maker movement and the concept of STEAM education emerged. The results show that e-textile practices have been integrated into the educational environment, in formal contexts, but particularly in non-formal contexts. As Halverson and Sheridan (2014) point out, this has great potential and opens up new opportunities for educational research. Publications on the subject warn that the diversity of learners, especially in terms of gender and ethnicity, should be taken into account, and accessible alternatives have been incorporated, both in economic and ethical terms, favouring open source technology.

To answer the first research question (Which STEAM areas are worked on through e-textiles and with which technologies?), the results of the review show that they have been used effectively across all STEAM areas, as the creation of these projects involves all disciplines of computer science, engineering, and the arts. In most studies, students explore the three interconnected fields of coding, production, and circuitry. As in educational robotics, this is beneficial for the development of computational thinking (Rich et al., 2022). In any case, e-textiles provide particularly compelling examples of transparent and high-quality learning tools, as they make technology visible to learners (Kafai & Peppler, 2014). The analysis of the selected publications shows that all STEAM areas are worked on, with the LilyPad kit being the preferred tool for experiences in this field (77.8%). In this regard, the importance of this kit has also been demonstrated in the field of fine arts, where there are also promising studies that show that it is a tool that allows artists and designers to explore new forms of artistic expression through the fusion of art and technology ( Peppler et al., 2013).

With regard to the second research question, which focuses on the methodological approaches used to integrate e-textiles in primary education, studies using guided learning predominate. The aim of the studies analysed focuses mainly on students designing and building, through instruction and/or discovery, a textile project in which they include a circuit, sometimes programming it, and making it work. One of the most challenging aspects of teaching computation is the interaction of the multiplicity of elements that interconnect to make a system work. This points to the need to implement the design of new strategies and to promote the ongoing training of teachers, both pedagogically and technologically in its instrumental and methodological dimension, from skills-based approaches that allow the integration of e-textiles in primary education classrooms through the promotion of student participation and learning by doing (Valente & Blikstein, 2019). In this regard, it should be noted that the predominant learning situation, while relying on the use of guides, allows for the use of unusual and unfamiliar materials and resources, such as wires, encouraging tinkering (Timotheou & Ioannou, 2019). All this ensures that the innovative activity takes place in a motivating and playful environment where collaboration, trial-and-error learning, creativity, and artistic expression are encouraged. In the words of Resnick and Rosenbaum (2013), the mere fact of the transparency offered by e-textiles and working with this type of material allows students to "see the process" and "see the result" of their work, receiving "immediate feedback" on what they are doing, which facilitates meaningful learning.

To answer the third research question (In which contexts does e-textile take place?), the results show that non-formal learning environments predominate. These results can be justified by arguing that the learning process that takes place when making an e-textile focuses on the process of creating, designing, and building physical electronic or programmable objects, and this goes beyond the learning process offered by the most widespread model of teaching (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). However, studies that do address the formal context show encouraging results for the use of e-textiles as a teaching resource with the aim of fostering integrated competence education, the development of skills in curricular areas, and the promotion of inclusive and equitable STEAM education.

In short, the results of the systematic review show that the field of e-textiles is a promising area for STEAM-integrated teaching and offers new directions in teaching with educational technology from a competence and integrative approach. Faced with the need for scientific training at early ages, we consider this domain as a promising line of research, but we find limitations arising from the small number of countries that have implemented these educational approaches and research. Another aspect to highlight is that although the trend in the field of research and experimentation with e-textiles emphasises the potential of these resources to work on STEAM within the formal setting, there is limited scientific literature, to date, in this respect. It should also be pointed out that the field of e-textiles became open to education only relatively recently. Finally, we conclude the investigation by considering that the scientific community would benefit from studies focusing on issues related to the gender perspective and equity with e-textiles within this age range.

REFERENCES

Aguilera, D., & Ortiz-Revilla, J. (2021). STEM vs. STEAM education and student creativity: A systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 11(7), 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070331

Ananthanarayan, S., & Boll, S. (2020). Physical computing for children: shifting the pendulum back to Papertian ideals. Interactions, 27(3), 40-45. https://doi.org/10.1145/3386235

Anderson, C. (2012). Makers: The new industrial revolution. Random House.

Ball, D., Tofel-Grehl, C., & Searle, K. A. (2017). Sustaining making in the era of accountability: Stem integration using e-textiles materials in a high school physics class. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education (pp. 1-7). https://doi.org/10.1145/3141798.3141801

Banzi, M. (2008). Getting Started with Arduino. O'Reilly Media, Inc.

Berzowska, J. (2005). Electronic textiles: Wearable computers, reactive fashion, and soft computation. Textile, 3(1), 58-75. https://doi.org/10.2752/147597505778052639

Buechley, L. (2006). A construction kit for electronic textiles. In 10th IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers (pp. 83-90). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISWC.2006.286348

Buechley, L. (2010). LilyPad Arduino: rethinking the materials and cultures of educational technology. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences-Volume 2 (pp. 127-128).

Buechley, L. (2013). LilyPad Arduino: E-textiles for Everyone. In L. Buechley, K. Peppler, M. Eisenberg, & K. Yasmin (Eds.), Textile Messages: Dispatches From the World of E-Textiles and Education (pp. 17-27). Peter Lang Publishing. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4539-0941-6

Buechley, L., Eisenberg, M., Catchen, J., & Crockett, A. (2008). The LilyPad Arduino: using computational textiles to investigate engagement, aesthetics, and diversity in computer science education. In Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM, 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357123

Buechley, L., Elumeze, N., & Eisenberg, M. (2006). Electronic/computational textiles and children's crafts. In Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 49-56). https://doi.org/10.1145/1139073.1139091

Buechley, L., Elumeze, N., Dodson, C., & Eisenberg, M. (2005). Quilt snaps: A fabric based computational construction kit. In IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE'05). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/WMTE.2005.55

Buechley, L., Peppler, K., Eisenberg, M., & Yasmin, K. (2013). Textile Messages: Dispatches from the World of E-Textiles and Education. New Literacies and Digital Epistemologies, 62. Peter Lang Publishing. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4539-0941-6

Del Valle-Morales, A., Aponte-Lugo, A., Torres-Rodríguez, J., & Ortiz-Rivera, E. I. (2020). Use of Emerging Conductive Materials for K-12 STEAM Outreach Activities and the Impact on Community Education Resilience. In 2020 Resilience Week (RWS) (pp. 140-146). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/RWS50334.2020.9241277

Dougherty, D. (2013). The maker mindset. In M. Honey & D.E. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 7-11). Routledge.

Erete, S., Pinkard, N., Martin, C. K., & Sandherr, J. (2016). Exploring the use of interactive narratives to engage inner-city girls in computational activities. In 2016 Research on Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT) (pp. 1-4). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/RESPECT.2016.7836168

Fields, D., & Kafai, Y. (2023). Supporting and Sustaining Equitable STEAM Activities in High School Classrooms: Understanding Computer Science Teachers’ Needs and Practices When Implementing an E-Textiles Curriculum to Forge Connections across Communities. Sustainability, 15(11), 8468. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118468

Fields, D. A., Lui, D., & Kafai, Y. B. (2019). Teaching computational thinking with electronic textiles: Modeling iterative practices and supporting personal projects in exploring computer science. Computational Thinking Education, 279-294. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6528-7_16

González-Pérez, L. I., & Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2022). Components of Education 4.0 in 21st century skills frameworks: systematic review. Sustainability, 14(3), 1493. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031493

Guler, S. D., & Rule, M. E. (2013). Invent-abling: enabling inventiveness through craft. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 368-371). https://doi.org/10.1145/2485760.2485801

Haddaway, N. R., Page, M. J., Pritchard, C. C., & McGuinness, L. A. (2022). PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1230

Halverson, E., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The Maker Movement in Education. Harvard Education Review, 84(4), 495-504. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063

Hatch, M. (2014). The maker movement manifesto. Rules for innovation in the new world of crafters, hackers, and tinkerers. McGraw-Hill Education.

Hébert, C., & Jenson, J. (2020). Making in schools: Student learning through an e-textiles curriculum. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 41(5), 740-761. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2020.1769937

Hughes, J., & Morrison, L. (2018). The Use of E-Textiles in Ontario Education. Canadian Journal of Education, 41(1).

Jayathirtha, G., & Kafai, Y. B. (2019). Electronic textiles in computer science education: a synthesis of efforts to broaden participation, increase interest, and deepen learning. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 713-719). https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287343

Jayathirtha, G., & Kafai, Y. B. (2020). Interactive Stitch Sampler: A Synthesis of a Decade of Research on Using Electronic Textiles to Answer the Who, Where, How, and What for K-12 Computer Science Education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 20(4), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3418299

Jia, Y., Zhou, B., & Zheng, X. (2021). A curriculum integrating STEAM and maker education promotes pupils' learning motivation, self-efficacy, and interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 725525. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.725525

Kafai, Y., Fields, D., Lui, D., Walker, J., Shaw, M., Jayathirtha, G., & Giang, M. (2019). Stitching the Loop with Electronic Textiles: Promoting Equity in High School Students' Competencies and Perceptions of Computer Science. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 1176-1182). https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287426

Kafai, Y., Fields, D., & Searle, K. (2011). Everyday creativity in novice e-textile designs. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition (pp. 353-354). https://doi.org/10.1145/2069618.2069692

Kafai, Y., Fields, D., & Searle, K. (2014). Electronic textiles as disruptive designs: Supporting and challenging maker activities in schools. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 532-556. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.46m7372370214783

Kafai, Y., & Peppler, K., (2014). Transparency Reconsidered: Creative, Critical and Connected Making with E-textiles. In M. Ratto & M. Boler (Eds.), DIY citizenship: Critical making and social media (pp. 179- 188). MIT Press.

Kafai, Y., Searle, K., Martinez, C., & Brayboy, B. (2014). Ethnocomputing with electronic textiles: Culturally responsive open design to broaden participation in computing in American Indian youth and communities. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 241-246). https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538903

Kafai, Y., & Vasudevan, V. (2015). Constructionist gaming beyond the screen: Middle school students' crafting and computing of touchpads, board games, and controllers. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 49-54). https://doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2818334

Kara, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2023). Using E-textiles to Design and Develop Educational Games for Preschool-aged Children. Educational Technology & Society, 26(2), 19-35.

Kazemitabaar, M., McPeak, J., Jiao, A., He, L., Outing, T., & Froehlich, J. E. (2017). MakerWear: A tangible approach to interactive wearable creation for children. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Proceedings (Vol. 2017-May, pp. 133–145). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025887

Keshwani, J., Barker, B., Nugent, G., & Grandgenett, N. (2016). WearTec: Empowering youth to create wearable technologies. In 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) (pp. 498-500). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2016.143

Klimczak, S., & Solomon, C. (2022). TurtleStitching: At least twenty things to do with a computer and a computerized embroidery machine. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 22(1). https://citejournal.org/volume-22/issue-1-22/seminal-articles/turtlestitching-at-least-twenty-things-to-do-with-a- computer-and-a-computerized-embroidery-machine

Koushik, V., Gendreau, A., Ho, E., Wilson, S., & Voida, S. (2017). Snappable sensors: empowering future scientists. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers (pp. 117-120). https://doi.org/10.1145/3123024.3123159

Kuznetsov, S., Trutoiu, L. C., Kute, C., Howley, I., Paulos, E., & Siewiorek, D. (2011). Breaking boundaries: strategies for mentoring through textile computing workshops. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2957-2966). https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979380

Lau, W. W., Ngai, G., Chan, S. C., & Cheung, J. C. (2009). Learning programming through fashion and design: a pilot summer course in wearable computing for middle school students. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 504-508). https://doi.org/10.1145/1539024.1509041

Lo, K. W., Tang, W. W., Ngai, G., Chan, A. T., Leong, H. V., & Chan, S. C. (2013). i* Chameleon: a platform for developing multimodal application with comprehensive development cycle. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (pp. 1103-1108). https://doi.org/10.1145/2480362.2480570

Lovell, E., Buechley, L., & Davis, J. (2023). LilyTiny in the Wild: Studying the Adoption of a Low-Cost Sewable Microcontroller for Computing Education. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (pp. 282-293). https://doi.org/10.1145/3563657.3595994

Lui, D., Fields, D., & Kafai, Y. (2019). Student maker portfolios: Promoting computational communication and reflection in crafting e-textiles. In Proceedings of FabLearn 2019 (pp. 10-17). https://doi.org/10.1145/3311890.3311892

Maeda, J. (2013). Stem+ art= steam. The STEAM Journal, 1(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.201301.34

Markvicka, E., Rich, S., Liao, J., Zaini, H., & Majidi, C. (2018). Low-cost wearable human-computer interface with conductive fabric for STEAM education. In 2018 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC) (pp. 161-166). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISECon.2018.8340469

Martinez, S., & Stager G. (2013). Invent to Learn: Making, Tinkering and Engineering in the Classroom. Constructing Modern Knowledge.

Merkouris, A., Chorianopoulos, K., & Kameas, A. (2017). Teaching programming in secondary education through embodied computing platforms: Robotics and wearables. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 17(2), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025013

Newman, M., & Gough, D. (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. In O. Zawacki-Richter, M. Kerres, S. Bedenlier, M. Bond, & K. Buntins (Eds.). Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application (pp.3-22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_1

Ngai, G., Chan, S. C., Cheung, J. C., & Lau, W. W. (2009a). Deploying a wearable computing platform for computing education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(1), 45-55. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2009.49

Ngai, G., Chan, S. C., Cheung, J. C., & Lau, W. W. (2009b). The teeboard: An education-friendly construction platform for e-textiles and wearable computing. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Proceedings (pp. 249-258). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518742

Ngai, G., Chan, S. C., Leong, H. V., & Ng, V. T. (2013). Designing i* CATch: A multipurpose, education-friendly construction kit for physical and wearable computing. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 13(2), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1145/2483710.2483712

Ngai, G., Chan, S. C., & Ng, V. T. (2013). i*CATch: A Plug-n-Play Kit for Wearable Computing. In L. Buechley, K. Peppler, M. Eisenberg, & K. Yasmin (Eds.), Textile Messages: Dispatches from the World of E-Textiles and Education (pp. 31-41). Peter Lang Publishing.

Norooz, L., Mauriello, M. L., Jorgensen, A., McNally, B., & Froehlich, J. E. (2015). BodyVis: A new approach to body learning through wearable sensing and visualization. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1025-1034). https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702299

Nugent, G., Barker, B., Lester, H., Grandgenett, N., & Valentine, D. (2019). Wearables textiles to support student STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28, 470-479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09779-7

Orth, M., Post, R., & Cooper, E. (1998). Fabric computing interfaces. In CHI 98 Conference Summary on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 331-332). https://doi.org/10.1145/286498.286800

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., & Alonso-Fernández, S. (2021). Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas. Revista Española de Cardiología, 74(9), 790-799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recesp.2021.06.016

Palaigeorgiou, G., Vroikou, G., Nikoleta, C., & Bratitsis, T. (2019). Wearable E-Textile as a Narrative Mediator for Enhancing Empathy in Moral Development. In Internet of Things, Infrastructures and Mobile Applications: Proceedings of the 13th IMCL Conference 13 (pp. 457-467). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49932-7_44

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.

Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. MIT MediaLab, 36(2), 1-11.

Pedersen, B. K. M. K., Marchetti, E., Valente, A., & Nielsen, J. (2020). Fabric robotics-lessons learned introducing soft robotics in a computational thinking course for children. In Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Human and Technology Ecosystems: 7th International Conference, LCT 2020, Held as Part of the 22nd HCI International Conference, HCII 2020, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 19–24, 2020, Proceedings, Part II (pp. 499-519). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50506-6_34

Peppler, K. (2013). STEAM-powered computing education: Using e-textiles to integrate the arts and STEM. Computer, 46(09), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2013.257

Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171309500306

Peppler, K., & Danish, J. (2013). E-textiles for educators: Participatory simulations with e-puppetry. In L. Buechley, K. Peppler, M. Eisenberg, & K. Yasmin (Eds.), Textile Messages: Dispatches from the World of E-textiles and Education, (pp. 133-141). Peter Lang Publishing.

Peppler, K., & Glosson, D. (2013). Learning about Circuitry with E-Textiles in After-School Settings. In L. Buechley, K. Peppler, M. Eisenberg, & K. Yasmin (Eds.), Textile Messages: Dispatches From the World of E-Textiles and Education (pp.71-83). Peter Lang Publishing.

Peppler, K., Gresalfi, M., Salen Tekinbas, K., & Santo, R. (2014). Soft circuits: Crafting e-fashion with DIY electronics. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10220.001.0001

Peppler, K., Salen Tekinbas, K., Gresalfi, M., & Santo, R. (2014). Short circuits: Crafting e-Puppets with DIY electronics. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9696.001.0001

Peppler, K., Sharpe, L., & Glosson, D. (2013). E-textiles and the new fundamentals of fine arts. In L. Buechley, K. Peppler, M. Eisenberg, & K. Yasmin (Eds.), Textile Messages: Dispatches from the World of E-textiles and Education, (pp. 107-117). Peter Lang Publishing.

Peppler, K., & Wohlwend, K. (2018). Theorizing the nexus of STEAM practice. Arts Education Policy Review, 119 (2), 88-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2017.1316331

Peppler, K. (2022). Makerspaces: Supporting creativity and innovation by design. In J. A. Pluker (Ed.). Creativity and Innovation (pp. 265-274). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003233923-22

Perignat, E., & Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2019). STEAM in practice and research: An integrative literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 31-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.10.002

Perner-Wilson, H., & Buechley, L. (2013). Handcrafting textile sensors. In L. Buechley, K. Peppler, M. Eisenberg, & K. Yasmin (Eds.), Textile Messages: Dispatches from the World of E-textiles and Education (pp. 133-141). Peter Lang Publishing.

Posch, I., & Fitzpatrick, G. (2021). The matter of tools: designing, using and reflecting on new tools for emerging eTextile craft practices. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 28(1), 1-38 https://doi.org/10.1145/3426776

Resnick, M., Ocko, S., & Papert, S. (1988). LEGO, Logo, and design. Children's Environments Quarterly, 5(4), 14–18.

Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. In M. Honey (Ed.), Design, make, play. Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators (pp. 163-181). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203108352-15

Rich, P. J., Bartholomew, S., Daniel, D., Dinsmoor, K., Nielsen, M., Reynolds, C., Swanson, M, Winward E., & Yauney, J. (2022). Trends in tools used to teach computational thinking through elementary coding. Journal of Research on Technology Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2022.2121345

Richard, G. T., Giri, S., McKinley, Z., & Ashley, R. W. (2018). Blended making: Multi-interface designs and E-crafting with elementary and middle school youth. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 675-680). https://doi.org/10.1145/3202185.3210798

Rigden, K., Jawaharlal, M., & Gutzke, N. (2019). Femineer® Program: A Model for Engaging K-12 Girls in STEM. In 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.

Rode, J. A., Weibert, A., Marshall, A., Aal, K., Von Rekowski, T., Elmimouni, H., & Booker, J. (2015). From computational thinking to computational making. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 239-250). https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2804261

Ryan, S. E. (2014). Garments of paradise: wearable discourse in the digital age. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8873.001.0001

Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM Education, STEMmania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.

Schelhowe, H., Katterfeldt, E. S., Dittert, N., & Reichel, M. (2013). EduWear: e-textiles in youth sports and theatre. In L. Buechley, K. Peppler, M. Eisenberg, & K. Yasmin (Eds.), Textile Messages: Dispatches from the World of E-textiles and Education (pp. 96-103). Peter Lang Publishing.

Searle, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2015a). Culturally responsive making with American Indian girls: Bridging the identity gap in crafting and computing with electronic textiles. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on genderIT (pp. 9-16). https://doi.org/10.1145/2807565.2807707

Searle, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2015b). Boys' Needlework: Understanding Gendered and Indigenous Perspectives on Computing and Crafting with Electronic Textiles. In ICER (pp. 31-39). https://doi.org/10.1145/2787622.2787724

Spina, C., & Lane, H. (2020). E-textiles in libraries: a practical guide for librarians (Vol. 69). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Stern, B., & Cooper, T. (2015). Getting started with Adafruit FLORA: making wearables with an Arduino compatible electronics platform. Maker Media, Inc.

Timotheou, S., & Ioannou, A. (2019). On making, tinkering, coding and play for learning: A review of current research. In Human-Computer Interaction–INTERACT 2019: 17th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Paphos, Cyprus, September 2-6, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 17 (pp. 217-232). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29384-0_14

Tofel-Grehl, C., Fields, D., Searle, K., Maahs-Fladung, C., Feldon, D., Gu, G., & Sun, C. (2017). Electrifying engagement in middle school science class: Improving student interest through e-textiles. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26, 406-417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9688-y

Tofel-Grehl, C., Searle, K. A., & Ball, D. (2022). Thinking Thru Making: Mapping Computational Thinking Practices onto Scientific Reasoning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31, 730-746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09989-6

Tofel-Grehl, C., Searle, K. A., Hawkman, A., MacDonald, B. L., & Suárez, M. I. (2021). Rural Teachers’ Cultural and Epistemic Shifts in STEM Teaching and Learning. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 11(2), 45-66. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2021.v11n2p45-66

Trappe, C. (2012). Creative access to technology: building sounding artifacts with children. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 188-191). https://doi.org/10.1145/2307096.2307122

Tytler, R. (2020). STEM education for the twenty-first century. Integrated approaches to STEM education: An international perspective, 21-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52229-2_3

Valente, J. A., & Blikstein, P. (2019). Maker education: Where is the knowledge construction? Constructivist Foundations, 14(3), 252-262. https://constructivist.info/14/3/252

Vasudevan, V., Kafai, Y., & Yang, L. (2015). Make, wear, play: remix designs of wearable controllers for scratch games by middle school youth. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 339-342). https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771911

Weibert, A., Marshall, A., Aal, K., Schubert, K., & Rode, J. (2014). Sewing interest in E-textiles: analyzing making from a gendered perspective. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 15-24). https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2600886

White, D., & Delaney, S. (2021). Full STEAM Ahead, but Who Has the Map for Integration? - A PRISMA Systematic Review on the Incorporation of Interdisciplinary Learning into Schools. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 9(2), 9-32. https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.9.2.1387

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

Yakman, G. (2008). STEAM education: An overview of creating a model of integrative education. STEAM Educational Theory.

Notes