Search for: All records

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. 

Makerspaces are common in engineering programs around the country and around the world. As universities invest more into these spaces, researchers investigate more the impacts of making in the educational setting. As more students across more educational contexts get involved in making and makerspaces, there is a greater need for educators to gain a more wholistic understanding of the impacts of making on the academic environment, both positive and negative. In this paper, we look at the critical relationship between makerspaces and academic performance at a unique university with a design-centric approach to engineering education. This study presents three key findings: First, more involvement in making early in the curriculum is related to increased retention. Second, increased anxiety towards engineering design is connected to both lower retention and lower involvement in academic makerspaces. Third, GPA and makerspace activity are largely independent at this university where the engineering curriculum prescribes engineering students’ engagement in making. As impacts of academic makerspaces are unfolding before us, these findings shed a positive light on their contribution to engineering education. 

Sketching is a valuable skill in engineering for representing information, developing design ideas, and communicating technical and abstract information. It is an important means of developing spatial abilities which are predictive of success in STEM fields. While existing spatial ability tests are predictive of engineering visualization skills, they do not allow students to develop drawing skills through spatial exercises. The Object Assembly Sketching test examines sketching skills with object assembly tasks using mental imagery and mental rotation. This study focuses on the development and pilot testing of a new sketching skills test using object assembly exercises. We piloted the test in two sections of an undergraduate mechanical engineering design course. Inter-rater reliability of two raters scoring students sketches on eight criteria was acceptable across exercises, but low across criteria. Students scored highest on Representation Accuracy, Scale, and Symmetry, and exhibited complex understanding of perspective sketching. We intend to revise the rubric to score for aesthetics and make instructions more precise.