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

Recommendations

Info

it comes to understanding some specific and fundamental scientific phenomenon, such as that living organisms evolve. This theory was found to be supported with some preliminary empirical evidence in a study of Ku and colleagues (2014), in which sophistication of epistemological beliefs were made salient in predicting students’ argumentation thinking only under an experimental condition where the students were prompted to consider the ambiguous information. Likewise, Bromme, Pieschl and Stahl (2010) revealed in their research that a person’s sophisticated beliefs were activated in “reflective” task contexts and not in others. In other words, a learner might approach a task in a “naïve” manner if that enhances effectiveness in task completion, despite his or her ability to adopt a more sophisticated approach. In addition, Hofer (2001) has added metacognitive processes in the multi-facet model by emphasizing beliefs about knowledge as a function of metacognitive knowledge, and metacognitive monitoring and judgments. More empirical testing of these models will enrich general understanding of personal epistemology. The chapter discussed the developmental and multi-facet approach in theorizing epistemological understanding. The scope, strength, and limitation of self-reports instruments measuring beliefs about knowledge, as well as objective assessments of epistemological development were reviewed. The previous section also highlighted what is not adequately captured by existing measurements. More attention should be paid to the interplay of beliefs about knowledge and other contextual factors in future studies. Lastly, it is suggested to consider using more than one form of instrument to triangulate results, and when applicable, more sophisticated statistical analyses to enhance reliability of findings. 130
References References marked with an asterisk indicate a scale. Ahola, S. (2009). Measurement issues in studying personal epistemology. Psychology and Society, 2(2), 184-191. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2004). Epistemological beliefs and implicit theories of intelligence as predictors of achievement goals. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4), 371-388. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2003.10.001 Bromme, R., Pieschl, S., & Stahl, E. (2010). Epistemological beliefs are standards for adaptive learning: A functional theory about epistemological beliefs and metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 5(1), 7-26. doi:10.1007/s11409-009-9053-5 Chan, K.W. & Elliott, R.G. (2000). Exploratory study of epistemological beliefs of Hong Kong teacher education students: Resolving conceptual and empirical issues. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 225-234. doi:10.1080/713650691 Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Luyten, L., & Bamps, H. (2001). Assessing epistemological beliefs: Schommer’s Questionnaire revisited. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(1), 53–77. doi:10.1076/edre.7.1.53.6927 Duell, O. K. & Schommer-Aikins, M. (2001). Measures of people’s beliefs about knowledge and learning. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 419-449. doi:10.1023/A:1011969931594 Elby, A. & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85 (5), 554-567. doi:10.1002/sce.1023 *Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 353-405. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1026 Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353-383. doi:10.1023/A:1011965830686 Inglis, M., & Mejia-Ramos, J. P. (2009). The effect of authority on the persuasiveness of mathematical arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 27(1), 25-50. doi:10.1080/07370000802584513 Kardash, C. M., & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of preexisting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 260-271. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.260 *King, P. M. & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). The development of Reflective Judgment in adolescence and adulthood. San Francisco, USA: Jossey Bass. King, P.M., & Kitchener, K.S. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 5-18. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3901_2 Ku, K. Y. L., Lai, C. M., & Hau, K. T. (2014). Epistemological beliefs and the effect of authority on argument-counterargument integration: An experiment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 67-79. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2014.03.004 Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kuhn, D., & Park, S.H. (2005). Epistemological understanding and the development of intellectual values. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 111-124. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2006.05.003 Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15, 309-328. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2006.05.003 131
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 and 12:
Chapter 2: Best Practices in Scale
Page 13 and 14:
o Participants respond to items suc
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:
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:
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: References References marked with a
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 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: Similar factor structures were prod
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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?