Measuring Affective Learning and Teacher Evaluation

Abstract

The scale known as the Measuring Affective Learning and Teacher Evaluation instrument is a self-report measure developed primarily by James C. McCroskey to assess student attitudes and emotional responses concerning both academic content and instructional quality within educational settings. This instrument is crucial for understanding the affective outcomes of communication and pedagogical processes.

The measure is designed to quantify two primary psychological constructs: Affective Learning, which reflects a student’s attitude toward the subject matter and future engagement with it, and Instructor Evaluation, which captures feelings toward the teacher and the likelihood of taking future courses taught by that individual. The scale employs a 7-point Semantic Differential Scale format, utilizing bipolar adjective pairs to capture the intensity and valence of student affect.

Keywords

Affective learning, instructor evaluation, teacher assessment, student attitude, communication education, instructional effectiveness, McCroskey, educational psychometrics.

Authors

James C. McCroskey

Purpose

The primary purpose of this scale is to provide researchers and educators with a reliable and efficient method for quantifying student affect within educational settings, particularly in the field of instructional communication. It moves beyond purely cognitive measures of learning to assess emotional and attitudinal responses, which are critical predictors of student motivation and future behavioral intentions, such as enrolling in subsequent courses.

The scale serves to disaggregate student affect into four specific dimensions that aggregate into two major components: attitudes related to the subject matter itself (affect toward content and affect toward classes in this content), and attitudes related to the person delivering the instruction (affect toward instructor and affect toward taking classes with this instructor). This separation allows for a more nuanced interpretation of student feedback.

Construct

The instrument measures two major higher-order constructs derived from four underlying affective dimensions. The first major construct is Affective Learning, which is a composite score integrating the student’s Affect toward content measure and their Affect toward classes in this content measure. High scores indicate positive attitudes toward the material and a strong likelihood of continued study in the area.

The second major construct is Instructor Evaluation, which combines the student’s Affect toward instructor measure and the Affect toward taking classes with this instructor measure. This construct assesses the perceived quality and fairness of the teacher, alongside the student’s willingness to re-engage with that specific instructor in the future. The scale relies on the established methodology of the semantic differential to measure connotative meaning and affective response.

Validity

While the excerpt does not detail specific validity coefficients, the instrument’s design aligns with established principles of educational psychometrics. The scale exhibits high face validity, as the items directly address the key components of attitude and future behavioral intention regarding both the content and the instructor.

Construct validity is supported by the clear theoretical separation of the four sub-measures into the two primary constructs of Affective Learning and Instructor Evaluation. Researchers typically rely on empirical evidence detailed in the primary reference (McCroskey, 1994) and subsequent studies that have utilized this instrument to confirm its ability to accurately measure the intended psychological constructs in various academic populations.

Reliability

Specific internal consistency estimates, such as Cronbach’s Alpha, are not provided in the source content. However, given that the scale utilizes multiple bipolar adjective pairs for each sub-dimension (four items per dimension), instruments of this structure, especially those validated in extensive instructional communication research, typically demonstrate strong internal reliability.

The scoring procedure emphasizes summing the scores of the sub-dimensions to create the two composite scores, a method that generally enhances the overall reliability of the final measures (Affective Learning and Instructor Evaluation). Subsequent academic use of this instrument has generally confirmed its stability and consistency across diverse educational contexts.

Factor Analysis

The instrument is inherently structured around a four-factor model at the item level, corresponding to the four explicit measures: Affect toward content, Affect toward classes in this content, Affect toward instructor, and Affect toward taking classes with this instructor. These four factors are hypothesized to load onto two higher-order factors: Affective Learning and Instructor Evaluation.

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) would be necessary to empirically confirm that the 16 items load cleanly onto their respective factors as intended by the scale’s scoring mechanism. The factor structure is crucial for maintaining the distinction between attitudes about the subject matter and attitudes about the teacher, a core feature of the instrument’s utility.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report attitude inventory; Semantic Differential Scale

Format: 7-point bipolar adjective scales

Language Available: English (Original publication language)

Population Group: Educational assessment; typically tertiary/college students

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults (Typically 18+)

Population Details: Primarily used with students in higher education settings for course and instructor assessment.

Test Methodology: Respondents are directed to circle the number (1 through 7) that best represents their feelings, where the numerical endpoints correspond to opposing adjectives (e.g., Bad vs. Good).

Keywords

Attitudinal measures, educational psychology, communication studies, instructional communication, Semantic Differential, course evaluation.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The instrument was first published in 1994. James C. McCroskey generally makes his research instruments available for non-commercial academic and research use without requiring a fee.

The original PDF outlining the measures and scoring procedure can be downloaded here: http://www.jamescmccroskey.com/measures/affect.pdf

Users intending commercial application or adaptation should seek formal permission from the author or his authorized representatives.

Reference’s

McCroskey‚ J. C. (1994). Assessment of affect toward communication and affect toward instruction in communication. In S Morreale & M. Brooks (Eds.)‚ 1994 SCA summer conference proceedings and prepared remarks: Assessing college student competence in speech communication. Annandale‚ VA: Speech Communication Association.

Items of the Measuring Affective Learning and Teacher Evaluation

The Measures:

Directions: Please circle the number that best represents your feelings. The closer a number is to the item/adjective‚ the more you feel that way.

(Affect toward content measure)

I feel the class’ content is:

1. Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good
2. Valuable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Worthless
3. Unfair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fair
4. Positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Negative

(Affect toward classes in this content measure)

My likelihood of taking future courses in this content area is:

5. Unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Likely
6. Possible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Impossible
7. Improbable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Probable
8. Would 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Would not

(Affect toward instructor measure)

Overall‚ the instructor I have in the class is:

9. Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good
10. Valuable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Worthless
11. Unfair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fair
12. Positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Negative

(Affect toward taking classes with this instructor measure)

Where I to have the opportunity‚ my likelihood of taking future courses with this specific teacher would be:

13. Unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Likely
14. Possible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Impossible
15. Improbable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Probable
16. Would 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Would not

SCORING: To compute scores on these measures‚ complete the following steps:

• Affect toward content:
  1. Step 1. Add scores on items 1 and 3.
  2. Step 2. Add scores on items 2 and 4.
  3. Step 3. Compute total score: 16 + (total of step 1) – (total of step 2)
• Affect toward classes in this content:
  1. Step 1. Add scores on items 5 and 7.
  2. Step 2. Add scores on items 6 and 8.
  3. Step 3. Compute total scores: 16 + (total of step 1) – (total of step 2).
• Affect toward instructor:
  1. Step 1. Add scores on items 9 and 11.
  2. Step 2. Add scores on items 10 and 12.
  3. Step 3 Compute total scores: 16 + (total of step 1) – (total of step 2).
• Affect toward taking classes with this instructor:
  1. Step 1. Add scores on items 13 and 15.
  2. Step 2. Add scores on items 14 and 16.
  3. Step 3. Compute total scores: 16 + (total of step 1) – (total of step 2).

Scoring for Affective Learning and Instructor Evaluation:

• Affective Learning = Affect toward content + Affect toward classes in this context.
• Instructor Evaluation = Affect toward instructor + Affect toward taking classes with this instructor.