Maker Education describes a learning approach grounded in hands-on creation and tinkering, where learners design their own projects using analogue and digital tools. Instead of passively receiving knowledge, children become active creators who iteratively design and refine prototypes (Ingold and Maurer, 2020, 2024; Martin, 2015). This approach builds on constructivist and constructionist perspectives (Harel and Papert, 1991), which emphasize that learning becomes particularly effective when learners build tangible objects (Piaget, as discussed in Bliss, 1996; Papert, 1991; Romeike, 2011; Stilz et al., 2020). In primary schools, maker activities enable interdisciplinary learning that integrates scientific experimentation, technological design, artistic choices, and collaborative reflection (Stiller et al., 2023; Martínez Moreno et al., 2021). Research shows that such projects can strengthen creativity, media literacy, self-efficacy, and persistence in problem solving (Halverson and Sheridan, 2014; Blikstein, 2018; Iwata et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2025). At the same time, schools face challenges such as limited time structures, lack of technical infrastructure, insufficient teacher training, and the risk of students engaging only in superficial tinkering without guidance (Hira et al., 2014; Hughes and Kumpulainen, 2021; Nemorin, 2017).

Although maker education is not yet a standard in all elementary schools, practical examples in German-speaking countries show that it can be integrated into everyday school life with either simple tools or high-tech equipment (Stilz et al., 2020). Some schools begin with small-scale, low-threshold initiatives, such as temporary workshop corners that combine craft materials, LED circuits, or basic coding tools like the Calliope mini (Bildung.digital, 2025; Stilz et al., 2020). Others have established permanent maker spaces connected to real-world activities, such as producing spare parts or printed textiles to support student-run mini businesses (Bildung.digital, 2025). Research-based implementations, such as the Thayngen primary school project in Switzerland, demonstrate that sustainable integration depends on leadership support, flexible time structures, and cooperation with external partners (Ingold and Maurer, 2021).

These examples illustrate the potential of maker education to support exploratory, creative, and interdisciplinary learning, but they also highlight the pedagogical challenge of scaffolding open-ended tasks to avoid superficial “tinkering” and to ensure meaningful reflection (Halverson and Sheridan, 2014). This balance between autonomy and guidance raises questions about how young learners actually engage with digital modeling and physical prototyping when offered open workshop conditions.

Despite increasing attention in research, empirical insights into how primary students design, reason about, and learn from digital fabrication processes remain scarce. Small, well-defined maker activities, such as 3D-printing customized dice, offer a promising context to investigate children’s creative decisions and their emerging understanding of geometry, balance, fairness, and material properties.

RQ1 concerned how children design dice in an open maker setting. The printed dice were highly individualized. Students integrated symbols such as stars, hearts, and smileys, used numbers or words, and sometimes wrote equations like “5 + 1 = 6.” Some dice included names or objects, and the traditional arrangement of opposite faces was frequently ignored. One student explained: “I made the 6 with stars instead of dots because stars are lucky.” Another commented: “It spells a word if I roll three times!”

RQ2 focused on creative problem-solving in relation to geometry, balance, or symbolism. Students connected rolling outcomes to features of their dice. Comments included: “Maybe one side is heavier,” “It looks like my die has a favorite number,” and “The circle on the 3 is big; maybe it’s heavier there?” Mass measurements supported these ideas, as dice varied in weight and deeper recesses or larger symbols influenced roll frequency. Some students suggested improvements based on testing, as one remarked: “I think I should improve my die.”

The students acted as designers, testers, and improvers, reflecting principles of maker education such as autonomy, iteration, and a positive error culture (Ingold and Maurer, 2024). Their reasoning about geometry and imbalance resembled early scientific inquiry, and personal design choices became objects of investigation when the dice behaved unexpectedly. Creative expression and analytical thinking worked together and not against each other.

The activity supported competencies associated with creativity, critical thinking, communication, collaboration, digital literacy, and reflective learning, consistent with competency frameworks and research in constructionist settings (KMK, 2016; Stilz et al., 2020). Students used symbols with personal meaning, generated hypotheses, helped each other with CAD tools, and demonstrated confidence in improving their work.

The project also highlighted challenges for implementing maker projects. Some students initially focused only on decorative aspects without considering functional effects. Teacher support was important for guiding scientific inquiry. Educators therefore need both technical preparation and pedagogical strategies to scaffold open-ended, inquiry-based design tasks (Hira et al., 2014; Nemorin, 2017).

Designing and printing personalized dice provided a low-threshold opportunity for primary students to engage with geometry, digital fabrication, and experimental testing while expressing personal ideas. The activity encouraged creative decision-making, analytical reasoning, and iterative improvement. These results show that maker education can support early STEM learning through meaningful, personally relevant tasks rather than predetermined exercises.

Looking forward, sustainable implementation requires teacher education programs and schools to provide time structures, access to fabrication tools, and pedagogical frameworks that support inquiry-driven making. If universities and policymakers invest in practical maker-pedagogy training and create pathways for teachers to adopt these approaches early, maker learning can become a future-oriented foundation for participation, agency, and innovation in STEM from the very beginning of schooling.