<?xml-model href='http://www.tei-c.org/release/xml/tei/custom/schema/relaxng/tei_all.rng' schematypens='http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0'?><TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
	<teiHeader>
		<fileDesc>
			<titleStmt><title level='a'>WIP: Expert Feedback and Student Think-Alouds for the Learning through Making Instrument</title></titleStmt>
			<publicationStmt>
				<publisher>IEEE Frontiers in Education</publisher>
				<date>11/03/2025</date>
			</publicationStmt>
			<sourceDesc>
				<bibl> 
					<idno type="par_id">10659307</idno>
					<idno type="doi"></idno>
					
					<author>L Marcos</author><author>R Nagel</author><author>J Linsey</author><author>M Alemán</author><author>K Douglas</author><author>E Holloway</author>
				</bibl>
			</sourceDesc>
		</fileDesc>
		<profileDesc>
			<abstract><ab><![CDATA[Abstract—This WIP research paper presents validity evidence for a survey instrument designed to assess student learning in makerspaces. We report findings from expert reviews of item content and student interpretations of survey questions. The instrument was developed using a theory-driven approach to define constructs, followed by the development of questions aligned with those constructs. We solicited written feedback from 30 experts in instrument development and/or makerspaces, who rated the alignment of items with our constructs. Based on this input, we revised our items for clarity and consistency. We then conducted 25 cognitive interviews with a diverse group of students who use makerspaces, asking them to explain their understanding of each item and the reasoning behind their responses. Our recruitment ensured diversity in terms of race, gender, ethnicity, and academic background, extending beyond engineering majors. From our initial 45 items, we removed 6, modified 36, and added 1 based on expert feedback. During cognitive interviews, we began with 40 items, deleted one, and revised 23, resulting in 39 items for the pilot survey. Key findings included the value of examples in clarifying broad terms and improved student engagement with a revised rating scale—shifting from a 7-point Likert agreement scale to a self-description format encouraged fuller use of the scale. Our study contributes to the growing body of research on makerspaces by offering insights into how students describe their learning experiences and by providing initial validation evidence for a tool to assess those experiences, ultimately strengthening the credibility of the instrument.]]></ab></abstract>
		</profileDesc>
	</teiHeader>
	<text><body><div/></body></text>
</TEI>
