The Learning Loss Scale as an Assessment Tool: An Empirical Examination of Convergent Validity with Performative Measures

The purpose of this study was to compare student growth in public speaking and hybrid introductory communication skills courses on four outcomes: public speaking anxiety, selfperceived communication competence, intercultural effectiveness, and connected classroom climate. This study also sought to find out whether there were differences in the achievement of outcomes and growth in each outcome by sex and ethnicity. Data from 908 participants utilized a within-subjects and between-subjects repeat measures design. Results showed that public speaking and hybrid communication courses reduced public speaking anxiety and increased selfperceived communication competence and connected classroom climate a similar amount, but did not significantly increase intercultural effectiveness for students overall. Small effects were found for sex on all outcomes and for ethnicity on two outcomes.

Section: A Need For Benchmarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public speaking versus hybrid introductory communication courses: exploring four outcomes

Broeckelman-Post

Pyle

2016

“…Critics of the Learning Loss Scale report that the reliability is difficult to assess (Rubin, 2009); the measure is not amenable to factor analysis (Hooker & Denker, 2013); learning loss shares a limited relationship with other cognitive learning measures (Hooker & Denker, 2013); the assessment relies on students' perception of what they have learned (Hess, Smythe, & Communication 451, 2001); and others might question whether the measure is a true cognitive indicator, since the two items feature students' affective perceptions of learning, without benefit of test scores. In fact, Sitzmann, Ely, Brown, and Bauer's (2010) meta-analysis revealed that self-assessments of learning are best categorized as an affective outcome and are generally more useful as indicators of how learners feel about a course than as indicators of how much they learned from it.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement in Instructional Communication Research: A Decade in Review

Mazer¹,

Graham²

2015

Periodic assessment and scrutiny of the discipline's measurement practices, instruments, and research findings are necessary to provide clarity and direction by revealing what we know, how we know it, and where the knowledge gaps exist. Reflective reviews have produced ample appraisals of the theory, research, and methods employed in the conduct of instructional communication scholarship. The scope of the present effort is twofold and includes both description and critical assessment and evaluation of 21 instruments published post 2004 in journal outlets that traditionally feature instructional communication research. The reliability, validity, and usefulness of each measure are examined, measurement practices are critiqued, and problems are identified. The manuscript concludes by offering several recommendations for measurement in instructional communication research.

“…Further, it is important to note that a perceived measure of cognitive learning (i.e., CLL) was utilized in this study. Given questions regarding measurement validity (Hess, Smythe, & Communication 451, 2001;Hooker & Denker, 2014;King & Witt, 2009), additional measures of cognitive learning need to be employed to understand fully the impact of teacher technology policies on learning. In addition, we did not consider individual differences in perceptions of technology policies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teacher Verbal Aggressiveness and Credibility Mediate the Relationship between Teacher Technology Policies and Perceived Student Learning

Finn¹,

Ledbetter²

2014

In this study, we extend previous work on teacher technology policies by refining the teacher technology policies instrument to account for the technology purpose (social, academic) and type (cell phone, laptop/tablet), and examine a model of teacher technology policies and perceived learning. We found that students are more sensitive to policies that regulate laptops/tablets than cell phones, and though students want teachers to regulate the use of wireless devices for social reasons, they desire choice when it comes to use of devices for academic reasons. Further, as predicted in our model, teacher verbal aggressiveness and credibility mediate the relationship between teacher technology policies and student perceived cognitive and affective learning. We suggest that students desire both clarity and choice when it comes to use of technology in the classroom.