Wilbert J. McKeachie

Reliability and Predictive Validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Mslq)

This paper reports on a new self-report, Likert-scaled instrument that was designed to assess motivation and use of learning strategies by college students. The motivation scales tap into three broad areas: (1) value (intrinsic and extrinsic goal orientation, task value), (2) expectancy (control beliefs about learning, self-efficacy); and (3) affect (test anxiety). The learning strategies section is comprised of nine scales which can be distinguished as cognitive, metacognitive, and resource management strategies. The cognitive strategies scales include (a) rehearsal, (b) elaboration, (c) organization, and (d) critical thinking. Metacognitive strategies are assessed by one large scale that includes planning, monitoring, and regulating strategies. Resource management strategies include (a) managing time and study environment; (b) effort management, (c) peer learning, and (d) help-seeking. Scale reliabilities are robust, and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated good factor structure. In addition, the instrument shows reasonable predictive validity to the actual course performance of students.

The Making of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire.

The goal of this article is to discuss one of Paul Pintrichs more enduring legacies: the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), an 81-item, self-report instrument consisting of 6 motivation subscales and 9 learning strategies scales. The MSLQ has proven to be a reliable and useful tool that can be adapted for a number of different purposes for researchers, instructors, and students. The MSLQ has been translated into multiple languages and has been used by hundreds of researchers and instructors throughout the world. This article reviews the history of the MSLQ and discusses how it has been used to (a) address the nature of motivation and use of learning strategies in different types of content areas and target populations; (b) help refine our theoretical understanding of motivational constructs, how they are distinct from one another, and what individual differences exist in self-regulated learning; and (c) evaluate the motivational and cognitive effects of different aspects of instruction.

Research on College Teaching: The Historical Background

Experimental research on college teaching began with single variable studies of class size and lecture vs. discussion. During the 1930s, research on student ratings of teachers began, and following World War II, studies of college teaching and learning became more common. In the decades from then to the 1980s, research moved to concern with a broader range of variables, to analyses of interactions between student and classroom variables, and to attention to processes as well as products resulting from teaching. Research on college teaching clearly meets Conants criteria for a scientific field: progress in theory, methods, and established knowledge. Moreover, we now have demonstrated that educational research can contribute to educational practice. Has research on college teaching made progress? Conant (1947) argued that a field could be called scientific when knowledge has accumulated, progress is evident in the development of new conceptual schemes resulting from experiments and observations, and the conceptual schemes lead, in turn, to more research. He suggested that one of the tests of whether a field qualifies would be to imagine the reaction of the pioneers in the field if they were to be brought back to life and viewed the current status of the research and theory. Would they acknowledge that there had been progress?

Student Ratings of Teacher Effectiveness: Validity Studies

Within the past four decades student opinions of teaching have been gathered as a source of data on teaching effectiveness. In connection with studies of the interaction of teaching methods and student motives in determining achievement, the Michigan researchers have had continuing interest in the use of student ratings of teacher effectiveness (e.g., McKeachie, 1957; McKeachie and Solomon, 1958; Carney and McKeachie, 1966). Certain stable dimensions of teaching as rated by students (Isaacson, et al., 1964) and personality characteristics of teachers related to effectiveness (Isaacson, et al., 1963) have been established. More recently we have been concerned with determining the validity of the ratings in terms of criteria of student achievement.

7: The Evaluation of Teachers in Higher Education

In teaching and learning, variation among individuals is the rule. Professors approach their jobs in different ways, as scholars, researchers, disciplinarians, healers, managers, and molders. Likewise, each student learns differently; students master different amounts of material in their courses and rate their teachers with varying degrees of tolerance. Variety is the substance, not the spice, of college life. But how much do differences among teachers influence student learning? How much do teacher differences contribute to differences in the ratings they receive from students and observers? Which are the teacher variables that make the difference? These are the basic questions in research on the evaluation of teachers, and they are the concern of this review. We will consider two kinds of procedures for evaluating teachers. The first relies heavily on inferences made by observers about the quality of a teachers performance. These observers may be a teachers students, colleagues, superiors, or the teacher himself. We will first examine student ratings, which have been studied most often, and then consider other evaluations that require observer inferences. The second kind of procedure for evaluating teachers involves direct measurement of the performance of students, the subject of the last section of this chapter.

College Student Intrinsic and/or Extrinsic Motivation and Learning.

Abstract How do extrinsic and intrinsic motives affect learning? We predicted that they would not be additive but rather that there would be interactive or curvilinear effects. Extrinsic and intrinsic goal orientation scales were administered to 13 classes—six psychology classes (two in Korea), three biology classes, three English classes, and one sociology class in a liberal arts college, a comprehensive university, and a community college. As predicted, students in the mid-third of the distribution in motivation for grades (extrinsic) who were high in intrinsic motivation achieved better grades than students with higher or lower extrinsic motivation.

Student Ratings of Faculty.

in higher education. This article offers suggestions and comments regarding the utilization of evaluative procedures and presents a sample evaluation form. Both the evaluation form and the procedures will, in many instances, require adjustments to make them suitable for employment in different institutions of higher education, and within particular institutions, because the purposes, techniques, and methods of instruction vary widely in the heterogeneous assemblage of educational institutions and academic disciplines that comprise higher education. Changes in teaching methods, in degrees of emphasis given to course objectives, and in the goals of higher education are occurring and are certain to continue to take place, moreover, in the increasingly dynamic academic community. The author believes, however, that the procedures and the form suggested herein, with appropriate adjustments for existing circumstances, are worthy of consideration by all who seek to secure more effective use of student evaluations of courses and teachers.

6: Effective College Teaching

Teaching effectiveness has become one of the most controversial issues in higher education, as pressures of student riots in the 1960s were followed by financial pressures from legislatures and donors. Thus a review of substantive knowledge about effective college teaching is timely. This review updates earlier efforts (McKeachie, 1963, 1970), and emphasizes insights gained since. When we think of teacher effectiveness, we almost inevitably think of the classroom and the teaching methods used by the teacher. Even though only a minority of the college teachers working hours are spent in the classroom, it is classroom teaching that is the focus of efforts to evaluate and improve teaching effectiveness. Such a focus misses the importance of the instructors hours spent in planning, counseling, tutoring, and encouraging students, and in meetings devoted to determining educational issues. Nevertheless, the classroom is the chief arena of instructor-student interaction. What goes on in classrooms is important in determining the learning experiences of students. Students can learn without teachers, but the teacher and his methods are rightfully perceived by students as crucial elements in determining their learning. In this chapter we deal with major instructional methods, with student characteristics affecting instructional effectiveness, and with microinstructional variables affecting the learning of a single lesson.

The Role of Colleagues in the Evaluation of College Teaching

The role of faculty colleagues in the evaluation of col lege teaching has yet to be defined adequately: national studies of evaluative information on teaching (3, 23,37) have shown trends of diminishing faculty involve ment. The percentage of colleges and universities using col league opinions, classroom visits, examination of course syllabi, and student achievement measures has decreased over the years. On the other hand, there has been a drama tic increase in the use of student ratings. Although in the

THE NEED FOR STUDY STRATEGY TRAINING

Publisher Summary This chapter discusses why students need training in study strategies. Education is frequently directed in ways that provide students with opportunities to carry out elaboration, self-monitoring, or other strategies but seldom is any explicit attention given to helping students become aware that they have a choice in types of learning strategies that may be employed. In general, educational activities are teacher-directed and students learn to conform to the teachers directions without any conscious thought about why the teacher directs them to carry out certain activities. Moreover, teachers themselves do not think teaching involves the development of more effective repertoires of learning strategies. Students are directed to carry out certain learning activities, but grades and other feedback to the students are primarily directed to the correctness of the outcome rather than to the strategy used to achieve the result. Students seldom get directed training and practice in developing study strategies. Rather, they stumble upon effective strategies only when, by chance, they vary their approach and find that one method works better than others.