The Collegiate Learning Assessment : : setting standards for performance at a college or university / / Chaitra M. Hardison, Anna-Marie Vilamovska.

• Superior document: Technical Report
• Author: Hardison, Chaitra M.
• TeilnehmendeR: Vilamovska, Anna-Marie.
• Year of Publication: 2009
• Language: English
• Series: Technical Report
• Physical Description: 1 online resource (123 p.)
• Notes: Description based upon print version of record.

The Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) is a measure of how much students' critical thinking improves after attending college or university. This report illustrates how institutions can set their own standards on the CLA using a method that is appropriate for the CLA's unique characteristics.

Table of Contents

Cover; PREFACE; CONTENTS; TABLES; SUMMARY; ACKNOWLEDGMENTS; ABBREVIATIONS; 1. INTRODUCTION; THE COLLEGIATE LEARNING ASSESSMENT; ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT; 2. BACKGROUND ON STANDARD SETTING; STANDARD-SETTING TECHNIQUES; EVALUATING STANDARD-SETTING METHODOLOGIES; 3. STANDARD-SETTING STUDY METHOD; PARTICIPANTS; MATERIALS; PROCEDURE; 4. STANDARD-SETTING STUDY RESULTS; WAS THERE CONSISTENCY ACROSS INDIVIDUALS IN WHERE THEYPLACED THE CUT POINTS?; WAS THERE GENERALLY MORE OR LESS AGREEMENT ACROSS INDIVIDUALS ON ONE OF THE THREE CUT POINTS THAN ON THE OTHER TWO?

WAS THERE MORE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS ON SOME PTs THAN ON OTHERS?DID THE CONSENSUS STEP TEND TO RAISE OR LOWER STANDARDS?; DID THE CONSENSUS STEP INCREASE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRESHMAN CUT POINTS AND SENIOR CUT POINTS ON THE SAME STANDARD?; DID THE CONSENSUS STEP BRING THE CUT POINTS CLOSER TOGETHER (REDUCE THE STANDARD DEVIATIONS)?; WAS THERE CONSISTENCY ACROSS TASKS ON THE AVERAGE CUT POINTS?; WAS THERE CONSISTENCY ACROSS PANELS ON WHERE THEY PLACED THE CUT POINTS FOR A GIVEN TASK?; WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRESHMAN AND SENIOR GROUP CONSENSUS STANDARDS CONSISTENT ACROSS PTs?

DID THE SORTING STEP INDICATE THE PANELISTS COULD APPLY THEIRGROUP CONSENSUS STANDARDS TO A NEW BATCH OF ANSWERS?5. STANDARD-SETTING STUDY CONCLUSIONS; 6. SUMMARY AND NOTES OF CAUTION; APPENDICES; A. SAMPLE PERFORMANCE TASK SCREEN SHOTS: CRIME; B. LOW-, MID-, AND HIGH-LEVEL CRIME RESPONSES; C. QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM AND SCALE MEANS AND STANDARDDEVIATIONS; D. INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP STANDARD-SETTING RESULTS; E. SORTING RESULTS; F. FEEDBACK FORM MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS; REFERENCES