The Collegiate Learning Assessment : : setting standards for performance at a college or university / / Chaitra M. Hardison, Anna-Marie Vilamovska.
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 characterist...
Saved in:
Superior document: | Technical Report |
---|---|
: | |
TeilnehmendeR: | |
Year of Publication: | 2009 |
Language: | English |
Series: | Technical Report
|
Physical Description: | 1 online resource (123 p.) |
Notes: | Description based upon print version of record. |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
id |
993628516104498 |
---|---|
ctrlnum |
(CKB)2550000000005572 (EBL)475075 (OCoLC)469698751 (SSID)ssj0000335944 (PQKBManifestationID)11261365 (PQKBTitleCode)TC0000335944 (PQKBWorkID)10278292 (PQKB)10925334 (MiAaPQ)EBC475075 (EXLCZ)992550000000005572 |
collection |
bib_alma |
record_format |
marc |
spelling |
Hardison, Chaitra M. The Collegiate Learning Assessment : setting standards for performance at a college or university / Chaitra M. Hardison, Anna-Marie Vilamovska. Santa Monica, CA : RAND, 2009. 1 online resource (123 p.) text txt computer c online resource cr Technical Report Description based upon print version of record. 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 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. English Includes bibliographical references. Collegiate Learning Assessment. Universities and colleges Standards United States. 0-8330-4747-7 Vilamovska, Anna-Marie. |
language |
English |
format |
eBook |
author |
Hardison, Chaitra M. |
spellingShingle |
Hardison, Chaitra M. The Collegiate Learning Assessment : setting standards for performance at a college or university / Technical Report 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 |
author_facet |
Hardison, Chaitra M. Vilamovska, Anna-Marie. |
author_variant |
c m h cm cmh |
author2 |
Vilamovska, Anna-Marie. |
author2_variant |
a m v amv |
author2_role |
TeilnehmendeR |
author_sort |
Hardison, Chaitra M. |
title |
The Collegiate Learning Assessment : setting standards for performance at a college or university / |
title_sub |
setting standards for performance at a college or university / |
title_full |
The Collegiate Learning Assessment : setting standards for performance at a college or university / Chaitra M. Hardison, Anna-Marie Vilamovska. |
title_fullStr |
The Collegiate Learning Assessment : setting standards for performance at a college or university / Chaitra M. Hardison, Anna-Marie Vilamovska. |
title_full_unstemmed |
The Collegiate Learning Assessment : setting standards for performance at a college or university / Chaitra M. Hardison, Anna-Marie Vilamovska. |
title_auth |
The Collegiate Learning Assessment : setting standards for performance at a college or university / |
title_new |
The Collegiate Learning Assessment : |
title_sort |
the collegiate learning assessment : setting standards for performance at a college or university / |
series |
Technical Report |
series2 |
Technical Report |
publisher |
RAND, |
publishDate |
2009 |
physical |
1 online resource (123 p.) |
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 |
isbn |
1-282-39857-1 9786612398575 0-8330-4897-X 0-8330-4747-7 |
callnumber-first |
L - Education |
callnumber-subject |
LB - Theory and Practice of Education |
callnumber-label |
LB2367 |
callnumber-sort |
LB 42367.27 H37 42009 |
geographic_facet |
United States. |
illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
dewey-hundreds |
300 - Social sciences |
dewey-tens |
370 - Education |
dewey-ones |
378 - Higher education |
dewey-full |
378.1/66 |
dewey-sort |
3378.1 266 |
dewey-raw |
378.1/66 |
dewey-search |
378.1/66 |
oclc_num |
469698751 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT hardisonchaitram thecollegiatelearningassessmentsettingstandardsforperformanceatacollegeoruniversity AT vilamovskaannamarie thecollegiatelearningassessmentsettingstandardsforperformanceatacollegeoruniversity AT hardisonchaitram collegiatelearningassessmentsettingstandardsforperformanceatacollegeoruniversity AT vilamovskaannamarie collegiatelearningassessmentsettingstandardsforperformanceatacollegeoruniversity |
status_str |
n |
ids_txt_mv |
(CKB)2550000000005572 (EBL)475075 (OCoLC)469698751 (SSID)ssj0000335944 (PQKBManifestationID)11261365 (PQKBTitleCode)TC0000335944 (PQKBWorkID)10278292 (PQKB)10925334 (MiAaPQ)EBC475075 (EXLCZ)992550000000005572 |
carrierType_str_mv |
cr |
hierarchy_parent_title |
Technical Report |
is_hierarchy_title |
The Collegiate Learning Assessment : setting standards for performance at a college or university / |
container_title |
Technical Report |
author2_original_writing_str_mv |
noLinkedField |
_version_ |
1806402863660793856 |
fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01151nam a2200289Ia 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">993628516104498</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20200520144314.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="006">m o d | </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr -n---------</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">090626s2009 cau ob 000 0 eng d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">1-282-39857-1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9786612398575</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">0-8330-4897-X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(CKB)2550000000005572</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(EBL)475075</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)469698751</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SSID)ssj0000335944</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PQKBManifestationID)11261365</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000335944</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PQKBWorkID)10278292</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PQKB)10925334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(MiAaPQ)EBC475075</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(EXLCZ)992550000000005572</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">MiAaPQ</subfield><subfield code="b">eng</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield><subfield code="e">pn</subfield><subfield code="c">MiAaPQ</subfield><subfield code="d">MiAaPQ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">LB2367.27</subfield><subfield code="b">.H37 2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">378.1/66</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hardison, Chaitra M.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The Collegiate Learning Assessment :</subfield><subfield code="b">setting standards for performance at a college or university /</subfield><subfield code="c">Chaitra M. Hardison, Anna-Marie Vilamovska.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Santa Monica, CA :</subfield><subfield code="b">RAND,</subfield><subfield code="c">2009.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">1 online resource (123 p.)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">computer</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">online resource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Technical Report</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Description based upon print version of record.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="505" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="505" ind1="8" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="505" ind1="8" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="546" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">English</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="504" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Includes bibliographical references.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Collegiate Learning Assessment.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Universities and colleges</subfield><subfield code="x">Standards</subfield><subfield code="z">United States.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="776" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="z">0-8330-4747-7</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vilamovska, Anna-Marie.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="830" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Technical Report</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="906" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">BOOK</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="ADM" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">2024-08-03 22:26:35 Europe/Vienna</subfield><subfield code="f">system</subfield><subfield code="c">marc21</subfield><subfield code="a">2012-02-25 22:41:52 Europe/Vienna</subfield><subfield code="g">false</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="AVE" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="i">DOAB Directory of Open Access Books</subfield><subfield code="P">DOAB Directory of Open Access Books</subfield><subfield code="x">https://eu02.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/uresolver/43ACC_OEAW/openurl?u.ignore_date_coverage=true&portfolio_pid=5350513220004498&Force_direct=true</subfield><subfield code="Z">5350513220004498</subfield><subfield code="b">Available</subfield><subfield code="8">5350513220004498</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |