LEADER 00966cam0-22003491i-450- 001 990002899040403321 005 20051010161840.0 035 $a000289904 035 $aFED01000289904 035 $a(Aleph)000289904FED01 035 $a000289904 100 $a20030910d1991----km-y0itay50------ba 101 0 $aeng 102 $aIN 200 1 $aEncyclopaedic dictionary of mathematics$fS. K. Arora, Jyoti Nanda 210 $aNew Delhi$cAnmol$dc1991 215 $a3 v.$d22 cm 610 0 $aDizionari 610 0 $aDizionari enciclopedici 610 0 $aMatematica$aDizionari 676 $a510.03 700 1$aArora,$bS.K.$0117682 701 1$aNanda,$bJyoti$0117683 801 0$aIT$bUNINA$gRICA$2UNIMARC 901 $aBK 912 $a990002899040403321 952 $aMXXXV-A-14$b6812$fMAS 952 $aMXXXV-A-13$b6811$fMAS 952 $aMXXXV-A-12$b6810$fMAS 959 $aMAS 996 $aEncyclopaedic dictionary of mathematics$9466555 997 $aUNINA LEADER 01125nam--2200385---450- 001 990000780020203316 005 20060331161219.0 010 $a88-495-0049-1 035 $a0078002 035 $aUSA010078002 035 $a(ALEPH)000078002USA01 035 $a0078002 100 $a20011129d2000----km-y0itay0103----ba 101 $aita 102 $aIT 105 $a||||||||001yy 200 1 $a<> caso Panzini$fTommaso Scappaticci 210 $aNapoli[etc.]$cEdizioni scientifiche italiane$d2000 215 $a183 p.$d21 cm 225 2 $aLetteratura italiana$v20 410 0$12001$aLetteratura italiana 600 $aPanzini, Alfredo 676 $a853.912 700 1$aSCAPPATICI,$bTommaso$0550328 801 0$aIT$bsalbc$gISBD 912 $a990000780020203316 951 $aVI.3. Coll.91/ 7(V C Coll 142/20)$b29971 G.$cV C Coll$d00075277 959 $aBK 969 $aUMA 979 $aANGELA$b90$c20011129$lUSA01$h1350 979 $c20020403$lUSA01$h1725 979 $aPATRY$b90$c20040406$lUSA01$h1654 979 $aCOPAT7$b90$c20060331$lUSA01$h1612 996 $aCaso Panzini$9965454 997 $aUNISA LEADER 03736nam 2200601Ia 450 001 9910219983303321 005 20200520144314.0 010 $a1-282-39857-1 010 $a9786612398575 010 $a0-8330-4897-X 035 $a(CKB)2550000000005572 035 $a(EBL)475075 035 $a(OCoLC)469698751 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000335944 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11261365 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000335944 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10278292 035 $a(PQKB)10925334 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC475075 035 $a(oapen)doab114850 035 $a(EXLCZ)992550000000005572 100 $a20090626d2009 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 14$aThe Collegiate Learning Assessment $esetting standards for performance at a college or university /$fChaitra M. Hardison, Anna-Marie Vilamovska 210 $aSanta Monica, CA $cRAND$d2009 215 $a1 online resource (123 p.) 225 1 $aTechnical Report 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 08$a0-8330-4747-7 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references. 327 $aCover; 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? 327 $aWAS 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? 327 $aDID 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 330 $aThe Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) is a measure of how much students' critical thinking improves after attending college or university. This report illustrates how institutions can set their own standards on the CLA using a method that is appropriate for the CLA's unique characteristics. 410 0$aTechnical Report 606 $aCollegiate Learning Assessment 606 $aUniversities and colleges$xStandards$zUnited States 615 0$aCollegiate Learning Assessment. 615 0$aUniversities and colleges$xStandards 676 $a378.1/66 700 $aHardison$b Chaitra M$01236752 701 $aVilamovska$b Anna-Marie$01236753 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910219983303321 996 $aThe Collegiate Learning Assessment$92871480 997 $aUNINA