Skip to main content

Student Assessment Of Their Learning Gains

SALG

OVERVIEW
Overview
Listed below is general information about the instrument.
Summary
Original author(s)

  • Seymour, E., Wiese, D., Hunter, A., & Daffinrud, S. M.

  • Murthy, P. P. N., Thompson, M., & Hungwe, K.
Original publication

  • Seymour, E., Wiese, D., Hunter, A., & Daffinrud, S. M. (2000, March). Creating a better mousetrap: On-line student assessment of their learning gains. Paper presented at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (pp. 1-40).

  • Murthy, P. P. N., Thompson, M., & Hungwe, K. (2014). Development of a Semester-Long, Inquiry-Based Laboratory Course in Upper-Level Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(11), 1909–1917. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400119u
Year original instrument was published 2000, 2014
Inventory
Number of items 46
Number of versions/translations 3
Cited implementations 16
Language
  • English
Country United States, Australia
Format
  • Response Scale
Intended population(s)
  • Students
  • Undergraduate
Domain
  • Affective
Topic
  • Self-Concept
Evidence
The CHIRAL team carefully combs through every reference that cites this instrument and pulls all evidence that relates to the instruments’ validity and reliability. These data are presented in the following table that simply notes the presence or absence of evidence related to that concept, but does not indicate the quality of that evidence. Similarly, if evidence is lacking, that does not necessarily mean the instrument is “less valid,” just that it wasn’t presented in literature. Learn more about this process by viewing the CHIRAL Process and consult the instrument’s Review (next tab), if available, for better insights into the usability of this instrument.

Information in the table is given in four different categories:
  1. General - information about how each article used the instrument:
    • Original development paper - indicates whether in which paper(s) the instrument was developed initially
    • Uses the instrument in data collection - indicates whether an article administered the instrument and collected responses
    • Modified version of existing instrument - indicates whether an article has modified a prior version of this instrument
    • Evaluation of existing instrument - indicates whether an article explicitly provides evidence that attempt to evaluate the performance of the instrument; lack of a checkmark here implies an article that administered the instrument but did not evaluate the instrument itself
  2. Reliability - information about the evidence presented to establish reliability of data generated by the instrument; please see the Glossary for term definitions
  3. Validity - information about the evidence presented to establish reliability of data generated by the instrument; please see the Glossary for term definitions
  4. Other Information - information that may or may not directly relate to the evidence for validity and reliability, but are commonly reported when evaluating instruments; please see the Glossary for term definitions
Publications: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

General
Original development paper ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Uses the instrument in data collection ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Modified version of existing instrument ✔ ✔
Evaluation of existing instrument ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Reliability
Test-retest reliability
Internal consistency
Coefficient (Cronbach's) alpha ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
McDonald's Omega
Inter-rater reliability
Person separation
Generalizability coefficients
Other reliability evidence

Validity
Expert judgment
Response process
Factor analysis, IRT, Rasch analysis ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Differential item function
Evidence based on relationships to other variables ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Evidence based on consequences of testing
Other validity evidence

Other information
Difficulty
Discrimination ✔ ✔
Evidence based on fairness
Other general evidence
Review
This instrument has not yet been reviewed by the CHIRAL team. If you would like to suggest this instrument to be reviewed, please let us know by using the CHIRAL Feedback page.
Versions
Listed below are all versions and modifications that were based on this instrument or this instrument were based on.
Instrument has been modified in:
Name Authors
Student Lab Questionnaire

  • Tomasik, J. H., Cottone, K. E., Heethuis, M. T., & Mueller, A.
Student Assessment Of Their Learning Gains (Computational Mo Theory Module)

  • Ruddick, K. R., Parrill, A. L., & Petersen, R. L.
Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment

  • Hunter, A. B., Weston, T. J., Laursen, S. L., & Thiry, H.

  • Weston, T.J., & Laursen, S.L.
Citations
Listed below are all literature that develop, implement, modify, or reference the instrument.

  1. Seymour, E., Wiese, D., Hunter, A., & Daffinrud, S. M. (2000, March). Creating a better mousetrap: On-line student assessment of their learning gains. Paper presented at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (pp. 1-40).

  2. Murthy, P. P. N., Thompson, M., & Hungwe, K. (2014). Development of a Semester-Long, Inquiry-Based Laboratory Course in Upper-Level Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(11), 1909–1917. doi.org/10.1021/ed400119u

  3. Taylor, A.T.S., Olofson, E.L., & Novak, W.R.P. (2017). Enhancing student retention of prerequisite knowledge through pre-class activities and in-class reinforcement. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 45(2), 97-104.

  4. Vishnumolakala, V.R., Southam, D.C., Treagust, D.F., & Mocerino, M. (2016). Latent constructs of the students' assessment of their learning gains instrument following instruction in stereochemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(2), 309-31

  5. Smith, A.L., Paddock, J.R., Vaughan, J.M., & Parkin, D.W. (2018). Promoting Nursing Students' Chemistry Success in a Collegiate Active Learning Environment: "if i Have Hope, i Will Try Harder". Journal of Chemical Education, 95(11), 1929-1938.

  6. Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013). Argument-Driven Inquiry: Using the Laboratory To Improve Undergraduates’ Science Writing Skills through Meaningful Science Writing, Peer-Review, and Revision. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(10), 1269–1274. doi.org/10.1021/ed300656p

  7. Prescott, S. (2013). Green Goggles: Designing and Teaching a General Chemistry Course to Nonmajors Using a Green Chemistry Approach. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(4), 423–428. doi.org/10.1021/ed300538d

  8. Gron, L. U., Bradley, S. B., McKenzie, J. R., Shinn, S. E., & Teague, M. W. (2013). How To Recognize Success and Failure: Practical Assessment of an Evolving, First-Semester Laboratory Program Using Simple, Outcome-Based Tools. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(6), 694–699. doi.org/10.1021/ed200523w

  9. McClure, C. P., & Lucius, A. L. (2010). Implementing and Evaluating a Chemistry Course in Chemical Ethics and Civic Responsibility. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(11), 1171–1175. doi.org/10.1021/ed1005135

  10. Hopkins, T. A., & Samide, M. (2013). Using a Thematic Laboratory-Centered Curriculum To Teach General Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(9), 1162–1166. doi.org/10.1021/ed300438t

  11. Canelas, D.A., Hill, J.L., & Novicki, A. (2017). Cooperative learning in organic chemistry increases student assessment of learning gains in key transferable skills. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(3), 441-456.

  12. Talbert, L.E., Bonner, J., Mortezaei, K., Guregyan, C., Henbest, G., & Eichler, J.F. (2020). Revisiting the use of concept maps in a large enrollment general chemistry course: Implementation and assessment. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(1)

  13. Student Assessment of Learning Gains Web site. salgsite.net/

  14. Wood, C., & Breyfogle, B. (2006). Interactive demonstrations for mole ratios and limiting reagents. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(5), 741-748.

  15. Gafney, L., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2007). Evaluating peer-led team learning: A study of long-term effects on former workshop peer leaders. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(3), 535-539.

  16. Tien, L.T., Roth, V., & Kampmeier, J.A. (2002). Implementation of a peer-led team learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organic chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 606-632.