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

Course Outcomes Scale
Centra and Gaubatz (2005) examined the Course Outcomes Scale on ETS’s Student Instructional
Report (SIR II; https://www.ets.org/sir_ii/about/) as a measure of perceived student learning.
This scale includes five items that are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (much more than
most courses) to 5 (much less than most courses). The five items address perceptions of
learning of course content specifically (2 items) as well as more general learning outcomes (3
items). Other components and scales on the SIR II, including scores on the Overall Evaluation,
Student Effort and Involvement Scale, and the Assignments, Exams, and Grading Scale were
significant predictors of perceived learning as measured by the Course Outcome Scale.
Perceptions of learning measured on course evaluations are related to overall course
satisfaction and rating of course instructor.
Student Estimates
Another measure of perceived learning is students’ self-assessment of their performance on an
assignment. The type and timing of these self-reports of perceived learning vary. Students’
estimates may be made in response to a single question (e.g., provide an overall estimate of
expected performance on a graded measure of learning) or on an item-by-item basis on the
measure (Schraw, 2009). Estimates can be made prior to (prediction) or after (postdiction)
completing the actual knowledge assessment. Moderate correlations between students’
estimates and instructors’ scores on performance measures have been reported in two metaanalyses;
Falchikov and Baud (1989) found a mean correlation of .39 (based on 45 correlation
coefficients), and Sitzmann, Ely, Brown, and Bauer (2010) found a mean correlation of .34
(based on 137 effect sizes). There are a number of factors that can influence the strength of
the relationship between perceived and performance measures of learning including
competence of the learner (experts [Kruger & Dunning, 1999] and higher-performing students
[Bol et al., 2005; Hacker et al., 2000] made more accurate self-reports; higher-performing
students tended to underestimate their level of performance (Bol et al., 2005), whereas lowerperforming
students were more likely to overestimate it (Bol et al., 2005; Hacker et al., 2000),
delivery mode (stronger correlation in face-to-face and hybrid than in online courses [Sitzmann
et al., 2010]), congruence of measures (stronger correlation when the perceived and
performance measures were similar [Sitzmann et al., 2010]), and emphasis of self-assessment
(stronger correlation when self-report was based on level of knowledge than on gain in
knowledge [Sitzmann et al., 2010]). Two additional factors that influence this relationship are
practice and feedback.
Feedback
As previously stated, Angelo and Cross (1993) emphasized the importance of providing
feedback about accuracy of content knowledge when using CATs. Feedback regarding
performance on summative assessments is also important for learning. Additionally, feedback
regarding accuracy when individuals practiced self-assessing knowledge strengthened the
relationship between perceived and performance measures of learning (Sitzmann et al., 2010).
63