A COMPENDIUM OF SCALES for use in the SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING

Recommendations

Info

into fMRI machines to observe which nerve cells or areas of the brain fire during thinking, so a review of the biological forms of measurement can be circumvented. In contrast, most psychological SoTL studies use surveys of some form or the other. Although you may need to write some specific questions to get at unique research questions you have, there are a wide variety of existing scales that help measure some common learning variables. A large body of academic literature identifies key factors influencing learning (Credé & Kuncel, 2008; National Research Council, 2001; Robbins et al., 2004) and what learning techniques work well (e.g., Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan, & Willingham, 2013). Study techniques in particular are important because they predict academic performance over and above standardized tests and previous grades (Gurung, 2015). There are a host of key psychological variables that are important as well. For example, it is clear that achievement motivation, goals, social involvement, and perceived social support are all positively associated with students’ academic performance (Hattie, 2015; Robbins et al., 2004). In particular, factors such as effort, ability, habits, and self-efficacy are strongly related to academic performance (Credé & Kuncel, 2008; Komarraju & Nadler, 2013). Not surprisingly, current college GPA and other cognitive indicators such as ACT scores and high school GPA also predict learning in a university setting (Komarraju, Ramsey, & Rinella, 2013). Measuring ACT scores and GPA is easy, or at least already done for you. It is getting at the other variables that is the challenge. The good news is that there are scales to measure each of the different variables reviewed above. A best practice then is to be sure you identify key psychological variables that are relevant to your study and then use the associated scale. Some scales representing common control variables in SoTL research are listed below, with some of them including sample items from the scale: - Academic Self efficacy (Gredler & Schwartz, 1997; Zajacova, Lynch, & Ependshade, 2005) o With the prompt “please answer how stressful these tasks are for you,” participants respond to items such as “keeping up with the required readings,” “doing well on exams,” “participating in class discussions,” and “understanding college regulations.” Participants also respond the same items with the prompt “how confident are you that you can successfully complete these tasks.” - Self regulation (Brown, Miller, & Lawendowski, 1999) - Critical thinking and motivation (Valenzuela, Nieto, & Saiz, 2011) - Academic locus of control (Curtis & Trice, 2013) o Participants complete a True or False response to items such as “I have largely determined my own career goals,” “There are some subjects in which I could never do well in,” “Studying every day is important,” and “I am easily distracted.” - Metacognition (Schraw, & Dennison, 1994; Tuncer & Kaysi, 2013; Wells & Cartright- Hatton, 2004) o Participants respond to items such as “I have a poor memory,” “I need to worry in order to do work well,” “I am constantly aware of my thinking,” and “it is bad to think certain thoughts.” - Motivated strategies for learning (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993) 12
o Participants respond to items such as “I prefer class work that is challenging so I can learn new things,” “I think I will be able to learn what I learn in this class in other classes,” “I expect to do very well in this class,” and “I worry a great deal about tests.” - Depth of processing (Enwistle, 2009) - Lifelong Learning Scale (Wielkiewicz, & Meuwissen, 2014) - Procrastination (Tuckman, 1991) o Participants respond to items such as “I postpone starting in on things I don’t like to do,” “I delay making tough decisions,” “I get right to work, even on life’s unpleasant chores,” and “when something is not worth the trouble, I stop.” - Study Behaviors/Process (Fox, McManus, & Winder, 2001; Gurung, Weidert, & Jeske, 2012) - Textbook Assessment and Utility Scale (Gurung & Martin, 2011) Why Should You Use Published Scales? The easy answer is that it saves you a lot of work. Measurement is not something done casually or quickly. Developing valid and reliable measures is a complex and involving process (Noar, 2003; Sosu, 2013), so the simple reason to use published scales is that the hard work has been done for you. Robust scale development involves multiple studies and iterations. A published scale has been through the peer review process and the associated checks and balances. Furthermore, other researchers will have also used that published scale providing you with additional information about the construct. Correspondingly, you have the use of a scale that should satisfy two important criteria for a good scale: validity and reliability. Validity and reliability are essential concepts in measurement. How well have you measured your outcomes and predictors? How likely are your measures to provide the same results when used again? Validity in general refers to the extent to which the scale measures what it is supposed to measure (Anastasi, 1988). There are many different forms of validity (e.g., external, statistical, internal) but when using scales we care most about construct validity. Construct validity refers to the idea that a scale is measuring what we think it is (Morling, 2015). Even when you use published scales, it is prudent to be aware and comfortable with the main forms of construct validity so you can assess the quality of the scale. Whereas some forms of construct validity are subjective in nature, the majority of them are objective in nature and easily assessed by statistical rubrics. Subjective forms of construct validity include face validity and content validity. A scale with good face validity looks like it is measuring what it is supposed to (you can see how subjective this is). Are the items plausible ways to get at the underlying concept? Content validity gets at whether a measure encompasses all parts of the underlying concept. Are the different items getting at all the different parts of concept? To have adequate content validity, a scale should have items at all the different parts of a concept. Often, scales have different sub-components or subscales in order to fully capture concepts. Objective forms of construct validity include criterion (concurrent and predictive), divergent, and convergent validity. Criterion validity assesses if the scale is related to the outcome it is 13
Page 1 and 2: A COMPENDIUM OF SCALES for use in t
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introd
Page 5 and 6: Chapter 1: Introduction Rajiv S. Jh
Page 7 and 8: and boredom; whereas the former inc
Page 9 and 10: References Bishop-Clark, C. & Dietz
Page 11: Chapter 2: Best Practices in Scale
Page 15 and 16: - Be aware of whether the scale is
Page 17 and 18: References References marked with a
Page 19 and 20: *Wielkiewicz, R. M. & Meuwissen, A.
Page 21 and 22: example, McCabe (2015) examined the
Page 23 and 24: psychometrically sound tool. Howeve
Page 25 and 26: a history of the authors’ work do
Page 27 and 28: *Oleson, K. C., Poehlmann, K. M., Y
Page 29 and 30: Chapter 4: A Primer on Scale Develo
Page 31 and 32: scales or develop new ones. In eith
Page 33 and 34: found their 40-item measure could b
Page 35 and 36: eflect overall teacher behaviors or
Page 37 and 38: Although there is some variability
Page 39 and 40: and/or do not correlate with instru
Page 41 and 42: Fraley, R. C., & Vazire, S. (2014).
Page 43 and 44: Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at
Page 45 and 46: Psychology, 36 of the 47 articles (
Page 47 and 48: Assessing and Reporting Validity In
Page 49 and 50: Grades Another common source of alr
Page 51 and 52: References References marked with a
Page 53 and 54: model of collaborative undergraduat
Page 55 and 56: Chapter 6: Measuring Learning and S
Page 57 and 58: joins a new team to teach them abou
Page 59 and 60: Summative Assessments Summative Rub
Page 61 and 62: programs. In a national survey of p
Page 63 and 64:
Course Outcomes Scale Centra and Ga
Page 65 and 66:
discuss The Motivated Strategies fo
Page 67 and 68:
The Motivated Strategies for Learni
Page 69 and 70:
References References marked with a
Page 71 and 72:
Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., & Bahbabani
Page 73 and 74:
Stoloff, M. L., & Feeney, K. J. (20
Page 75 and 76:
interpretation of analogies is an a
Page 77 and 78:
Similar difficulties in accurately
Page 79 and 80:
How do we balance the need for effi
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
*Halpern, D. F. (2010). Halpern Cri
Page 85 and 86:
Appendix: A Compendium of General C
Page 87 and 88:
Chapter 8: Student Engagement Towar
Page 89 and 90:
particular items. Indeed, a point o
Page 91 and 92:
employing the SCEQ have shown other
Page 93 and 94:
one of eight achievement emotions m
Page 95 and 96:
Recent efforts (Saddler, Sonnert, H
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
64, 847-860. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.
Page 101 and 102:
*Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gon
Page 103 and 104:
course. Pretest and posttest survey
Page 105 and 106:
Perceptions 7 Problem-Solving 1 Sat
Page 107 and 108:
Culture and Issues Knowledge of Cur
Page 109 and 110:
Civic Attitudes and Skills Question
Page 111 and 112:
Scale of Service-Learning Involveme
Page 113 and 114:
engagement and psychological measur
Page 115 and 116:
Giles, D. E., & Eyler, J. (2013). T
Page 117 and 118:
Appendix A: Research Measures for M
Page 119 and 120:
Robby, M.A. -CASQ -SAT/9 Scores -¹
Page 121 and 122:
Steinberg, K. S., Hatcher, J. A., B
Page 123 and 124:
Chapter 10: Measuring Individual Di
Page 125 and 126:
either unnecessary or is referenced
Page 127 and 128:
Park, 2005). The merit of the instr
Page 129 and 130:
Similar factor structures were prod
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Chapter 11: Measuring Well-Being in
Page 135 and 136:
items, and the PANAS 44 items, and
Page 137 and 138:
Meaning in Life The Meaning in Life
Page 139 and 140:
future,” using a 5-point scale (1
Page 141 and 142:
Domain-Specific Stress and Anxiety
Page 143 and 144:
demonstrate peoples' varying levels
Page 145 and 146:
Gehlbach, H. (2015). Seven survey s
Page 147 and 148:
Ritchie, R. A., Meca, A., Madrazo,
Page 149 and 150:
Chapter 12: Assessing Professor-Stu
Page 151 and 152:
ends with some unanswered questions
Page 153 and 154:
positively about their professors
Page 155 and 156:
The PSRS underwent further validati
Page 157 and 158:
help or hinder the graduate student
Page 159 and 160:
Komarraju, M. (2013). Ideal teacher
Page 161 and 162:
Chapter 13: Effective Tools for Ass
Page 163 and 164:
offer guidance based on their exper
Page 165 and 166:
The Original TBC Study Our approach
Page 167 and 168:
student/faculty rating with critica
Page 169 and 170:
eveals that five qualities (knowled
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
*Wann, P.D. (2001, January). Facult
Page 175 and 176:
Nessie the Mythical Loch Ness Monst
Page 177 and 178:
components of knowledge of cognitio
Page 179 and 180:
a cognitive activity (Cacioppo et a
Page 181 and 182:
teacher? In other words, how do we
Page 183 and 184:
Christopher (2015) also suggests th
Page 185 and 186:
Kirk, C., Busler, J., Keeley, J., &
show all

A COMPENDIUM OF SCALES for use in the SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?