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

Recommendations

Info

Cottell, P., & Harwood, E. (1998). Do classroom assessment techniques (CATs) improve student learning? New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 75, 37–46. doi:10.1002/tl.7504 Crick, J. E., & Brennan, R. L. (1984). General purpose analysis of variance system 2.2. Iowa City, IA. American College Testing Program. Derogatis, L. R., & Melisaratos, N. (1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory: An introductory report. Psychological Medicine, 13, 595–605. doi:10.1017/S0033291700048017 DiBenedetto, M. K., & Bembenutty, H. (2013). Within the pipeline: Self-regulated learning, selfefficacy, and socialization among college students in science courses. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 218–224. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.09.015 Dolinsky, B., & Kelley, J. M. (2010). For better or for worse: Using an objective program assessment measure to enhance an undergraduate psychology program. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 252–256. doi:10.1080/00986283.2010.510978 Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessment: The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 14, 1–11. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=14&n=7 *Elias, S. M., & Loomis, R. J. (2002). Utilizing need for cognition and perceived self-efficacy to predict academic performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1687–1702. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02770.x Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 395–430. doi:10.3102/00346543059004395 Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (1999). The revised learning indicators scale. Communication Studies, 50(1), 1–12. doi:10.1080/10510979909388466 Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M., & Houser, M. (1996). The development of a learner empowerment measure. Communication Education, 45, 181–199. doi:10.1080/03634529609379048 Gallagher, S. P., & Cook, S. P. (2013). The validity of the Major Field Test in psychology as a programme assessment tool. Psychology Teaching Review, 19(2), 59–72. Retrieved from http://www.millersville.edu/~sgallagh/Publications/ptr2013.pdf Galyon, C. E., Blondin, C. A., Yaw, J. S., Nalls, M. L., & Williams, R. L. (2012). The relationship of academic self-efficacy to class participation and exam performance. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 233–249. doi:10.1007/s11218-011-9175-x Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1995). Assessing students' motivation and learning strategies: The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED383770) Gore, P. J. (2006). Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes: Two incremental validity studies. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 92–115. Retrieved from http://jca.sagepub.com *Greenberg, K. P. (2015). Rubric use in formative assessment: A detailed behavioral rubric helps students improve their scientific writing skills. Teaching of Psychology, 42, 211–217. doi:10.1177/009868315587618 70
Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., & Bahbabani, K. (2008). Explaining calibration accuracy in classroom contexts: The effects of incentives, reflection, and explanatory style. Metacognition Learning, 3, 101–121. doi:10.1007/s11409-008-9021-5 Høigaard, R., Kovač, V. B., Øverby, N. C., & Haugen, T. (2015). Academic self-efficacy mediates the effects of school psychological climate on academic achievement. School Psychology Quarterly, 30, 64–74. doi:10.1037/spq0000056 Komarraju, M., & Nadler, D. (2013). Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do implicit beliefs, goals, and effort regulation matter? Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 67– 72. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.005 Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121–1134. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121 *Lipnevich, A. A., McCallen, L. N., Miles, K. P., & Smith, J. K. (2014). Mind the gap! Students’ use of exemplars and detailed rubrics as formative assessment. Instructional Science, 42, 539–559. doi:10.1007/s11251-013-9299-9 Lom, B. (2012). Classroom activities: Simple strategies to incorporate student-centered activities within undergraduate science lectures. The Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 11, A64–A71. Retrieved from http://www.funjournal.org/ Marzano, R. J. (2002). A comparison of selected methods of scoring classroom assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 249–268. doi:10.1207/S15324818AME1503.2 McCroskey, J. C., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., & Barraclough, R. A. (1996). Nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication Education, 45, 200–211. doi:10.1080/03634529609379049 Montgomery, K. (2002). Authentic tasks and rubrics: Going beyond traditional assessments in college teaching. College Teaching, 50(1), 34–39. doi:10.1080/87567550209595870 Mueller, J. (2014) Rubrics. Available at http://jfmueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/rubrics.htm Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30–38. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.38.1.30 National Association of Colleges and Employers (2015). Job outlook: The candidate skills/qualities employers want, the influence of attributes. Retrieved from https://www.naceweb.org/s11122014/job-outlook-skills-qualities-employers-want.aspx Pinter, B., Matchock, R. L., Charles, E. P., & Balch, W. R. (2014). A cross-sectional evaluation of student achievement using standardized and performance-based tests. Teaching of Psychology, 41, 20–17. doi:10.1177/0098628313514174 *Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33 *Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Technical report 91-B-004. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED338122) Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813, doi:10.1177/0013164493053003024. 71
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: 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: References References marked with a
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 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 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?