Assessing learning dispositions: is the Effective lifelong learning inventory valid and reliable as a measurement tool?

• Published in: Educational research (Windsor) Vol. 50; no. 4; pp. 387 - 402
• Main Authors: Crick, Ruth Deakin, Yu, Guoxing
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Routledge 01.12.2008
• Subjects: assessment; competence; Continuing education; Ecology; Educational Research; Evaluation; Factor Analysis; High Schools; Learning; learning dispositions; learning how to learn; learning power; Lifelong Learning; Measurement; Reliability; Self Evaluation (Individuals); Statistical Analysis; Student Attitudes; Teaching Methods; Universities; Urban Areas; Validity
• ISSN: 0013-1881; 1469-5847
• DOI: 10.1080/00131880802499886

Background: The Effective lifelong learning inventory (ELLI) has been used as a diagnostic self assessment tool in schools and universities and other learning contexts as a means of raising an individual's awareness of their own learning dispositions and encouraging them to take responsibility for their own learning. The demand for the ELLI, in practice, has been significant, and since it is administered online, since 2004 a dataset of over 10,000 cases has accumulated. Purpose: This paper focuses on an exploration of the internal reliability, validity and stability of the seven scales of the ELLI. Some suggestions of its relevance to practice are made, though this is not the focus of the paper and is discussed elsewhere. Programme description: The inventory is available to formal learning organisations, and is administered by teachers who have been trained in its application, drawing on research and best practice through an evaluated programme. Sample: The total sample in this study is 10,496 individuals from 122 institutions and 413 classrooms. Design and methods: An exploratory factor analysis and scale reliability computations were undertaken and a 'sensitivity' study based on a subgroup of the original sample, collected in 2002 is reported. An Analysis of Variance study is repeated, comparing means between age ranges. Results: The study demonstrates again that the scales remain stable and continue to reach acceptable reliability levels in the new sample, in five age ranges and that the mean score on all positive learning dispositions reduces significantly until the 16-19 age range. Conclusions: The scales demonstrate a significant degree of stability, reliability and internal consistency over time. The constructs measured are thus useful for research, and institutional self-evaluation, and can be used, in practice, with some confidence. There remains a significant ongoing research agenda relating to the plasticity of the construct of learning dispositions and the 'positioning' of dispositions within an ecology of learning.