In a recent Chronicle commentary, Alexander Austin explains some of the logical errors and statistical assumptions made by the authors of "Academically Adrift" that impact the far-reaching conclusions of the book.
It seems that the reliability (of student-level scores) of the Collegiate Learning Assessment, the test used to make the claim that 45% of students "failed to show significant (learning) gains" in their first two years of college, is unknown and likely in question. A lack of reliability could inflate the proportion of students who show "no significant gain" in learning.
What are your thoughts? If you would construct a test to determine if students were learning what you hoped they were learning in their first two years of college, what would be on the test?
Stay current by reading updates from the University of North Florida, from other institutions of higher learning, and from around the nation. Conferences, grant funding, and interesting articles will be posted as they relate to pursuing success as a university professor.
No comments:
Post a Comment