The process for developing an instrument for education research: An example of the Technology-Enabled Active Learning Inventory (TEAL)

Session Time and Location

Date:
Fri, 8 Jun 2018
Time:
Time:
9:45am to 11:15am
Room: Room:
Camellia
Session Track
Session Format

Valid and reliable measurement is the cornerstone of scholarly research.  Yet educational research involves humans as subjects and often is attempting to collect evidence of change after very short exposures is challenged to demonstrate the veracity of findings.  This paper will briefly identify the common challenges professional developers face when working with discipline experts on teaching and learning studies.  It will then link these challenges to the “big issues” for all forms of research, before presenting the main focus which is the process and key methodological stages for creating a valid and reliable instrument for educational research.

 

  • Session References +

    Bernstein, D. J. (2008). Peer review and evaluation of the intellectual work of teaching. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(2), 48-51.

    Bohrnstedt, G. W. (1970). Reliability and validity assessment in attitude measurement. In G. F. Summers, Ed) (Ed.), Attitude measurement (pp. 80-99). Chicago, Illinois: Rand-McNally.

    Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered. Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Creswell, J. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

    Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

    Cronbach, L. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing (3 ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

    Crouch, C.H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-77. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1374249

    Felten, P. (2013). Principles of good practice in SoTL. Teaching and Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(1), 121-125.

    Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine Pub.

    Glassick, C.E., Huber, M.T., & Maeroff, G.I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Hutchings, P. (2000). Introduction: Approaching the scholarship of teaching and learning. In P. Hutchings (Ed.), Opening lines: approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning (pp. 1-10). (n.p.): Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Landis, J. R., & Koch, C. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.

    Light, R., Singer, J., & Willett, J. (1990). By design: Planning research on higher education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    McKinney, K. (2007). Enhancing learning through the scholarship of teaching and learning: The challenges and joys of juggling. Bolton, Mass.: Anker Pub.

    Moore, G., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222.

    Nunnally, J. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students' academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353-387.

    Trigwell, K. (2013). Scholarship of teaching and learning. In Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. University teaching in focus a learning-centred approach (pp. 253-267). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis.

    Weber, R. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed., Quantitative applications in the social sciences; no. 07-049). Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.