LEADER 03702nam 2200589Ia 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(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 $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