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

The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ)
Researchers from multiple institutions developed the MSLQ based on social cognitive
principles. As Garcia and Pintrich (1995) explained, the MSLQ has two major sections
(motivation and learning strategies) with the motivational section subdivided into three
components: expectancy (including the self-efficacy scale), value (e.g., extrinsic and intrinsic
orientations), and affect (encompassing test anxiety). Because beliefs and strategies likely
differ across courses, students respond to all 81 items in terms of a specific course using a 7-
point Likert scale with answer options ranging from 1 (not at all true of me) to 7 (very true of
me).
The eight items on the self-efficacy scale (α = .93, Pintrich et al., 1991) reflect expectancy for
success and self-efficacy. Regarding predictive validity, scores on this scale positively correlated
with final grade (r = .41); the correlation was stronger for the self-efficacy scale than for any of
the other MSLQ motivation or learning strategy scales. Self-efficacy scores also correlated
more strongly with intrinsic motivation (r = .59) than with any other scale. Komarraju and
Nadler (2013) reported a significant correlation (r = .50) between self-efficacy and effort
regulation and found that students with higher self-efficacy were more likely than those with
lower self-efficacy to believe that intelligence can change and to adopt mastery goals.
Conclusion
A well-developed assessment plan encompasses both classroom and program-level
assessments of learning based on specific goals. For example, the measures discussed in this
chapter coincide with goals in the APA Guidelines 2.0 (APA, 2013) related to the knowledge
base of psychology, communication, and professional development. Both formative and
summative assessments play a distinct role in promoting and measuring student learning;
although, educators may not consistently recognize distinctions between the two (Taras, 2002)
or realize that the same types of assessments (e.g., rubrics, quizzes) may be used for both
formative and summative purposes.
The tools discussed in this chapter to evaluate actual classroom learning (e.g., CATs and rubrics)
and program assessment (e.g., standardized examinations) may not be classified as traditional
scales. However, considering the variability in learning goals for both content and skills across
courses, it would be challenging to develop scales of actual learning suitable for universal
application at the course level. Moreover, multiple possibilities do exist for meaningful
classroom assessment (e.g., examinations, presentations, problem-solving assignments), which,
if constructed and evaluated appropriately, may serve as effective measures of learning. For
program evaluation, the use of such standardized assessments can provide a common metric of
performance. Given these existing assessments for evaluating course and program-specific
knowledge and skills, it may not be necessary to create generalizable, traditional scales for
these purposes.
On the other hand, multiple scales are available to measure students’ perceptions of learning
and constructs related to learning. As Rovai and colleagues (2009) noted, educational
outcomes are influenced by numerous variables, including factors related to course design and
67