Critical Thinking Assessment at MCC. How are we doing?

Critical Thinking Assessment at MCC How are we doing? Prepared by Maura McCool, M.S. Office of Research, Evaluation and Assessment Metropolitan Community Colleges Fall 2003 1

General Education Assessment Metropolitan Community Colleges Critical Thinking Executive Summary Four different categories of Critical Thinking tests have been used to assess this outcome at MCC. These tests are the Watson Glaser (Form A and B), the Cornell X, the CAAP and the Watson Glaser Form S. All the subscales comprised within the Watson Glaser (Form A and B) correlate significantly with MCC GPA (positive correlation). The Cornell X, the CAAP and the Watson Glaser Form S also are positively and significantly correlated with MCC GPA. The mean score for MCC students on the Watson Glaser (Form A and B) is 51.9, which falls within the 50 th percentile for the normative data on two-year community colleges. In other words, MCC students score the same as their counterparts around the nation. The mean score for MCC students on the Cornell X is 45.5 compared with 46.7, which is the mean of Cornell X scores of freshman students at a state college. In other words, MCC students score similar to freshman at state colleges. The mean CAAP score for MCC students is 63. The 50 th percentile for freshman at two-year institutions is 61 according to normative data; therefore, we can conclude that MCC students perform well compared to other similar students. The mean score for MCC students in the Watson Glaser Form S is 25.7. The average score for freshman students at a Northeastern University is 29.5. MCC students scores are slightly lower than those obtained for freshman students at 4-yr universities. Students who had completed 20 or more hours at the time of their critical thinking assessment, scored slightly higher than their less experienced counterparts; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance. 2

Those students who obtained a degree from MCC consistently outperformed their non-degreed counterparts in the four different critical thinking assessments. As students move through MCC, students feel significantly more satisfied about MCC s contribution to their critical thinking abilities. In order to determine the predictive value of some of our general education courses regarding critical thinking scores, we performed multiple regression analyses. There are several issues to keep in mind: For instance, in order to perform the regression analyses, the grades were coded as successful (A, B, and C) and unsuccessful (D, F, I and W) and were grouped this way for the purposes of the analyzes. In addition, it is important to point out that regression analyzes usually require a certain number of participants for some of the categories, we did not have enough participants on each cell to be able to perform such analyzes. Success in BIOL 100 the most predictive of the scores on the Watson Glaser (Form A and B) followed by READ 100. Success in READ 108 is most predictive of scores on the CORNELL X followed by ENGL 102 and PSYC 140. Success in PHIL 100 is most predictive of scores on the CAAP followed by success in SOCI 160 and PSYC 140. Success in HIST 134 is most predictive of scores on the Watson Glaser Form S, followed by success in PHIL 200 and HIST 133. 3

Critical Thinking Courses in MCC s general education component will provide students with opportunities to enhance and cultivate their abilities to engage in higher-order thinking that is implied in conscious, deliberate inquiry. Students will be presented with opportunities to think reflexively, to employ the type of imaginative thinking that permits one to grasp perspectives of others and consider possible consequences of positions and actions, and to engage in analytic and evaluative thought. Students who have completed MCC s general education curriculum will be able to demonstrate the following abilities: The ability to respond to presented material in these ways: Distinguish among facts, feelings, judgment, and inferences Distinguish between an inductive and deductive argument Integrate information and see relationships Recognize the structure of argument Distinguish between objective and subjective The ability to generate questions, construct arguments and adequately support arguments, especially as demonstrated by the shaping of a thesis and supporting of a thesis with logical evidence and discussion. The ability to define, analyze and devise solutions for problems and issues. The ability to sort, organize, classify, correlate and analyze materials and data. The ability to evaluate information, materials and data, especially in the following ways: Draw inferences Arrive at reasonable, informed conclusions Apply understanding and knowledge to new and different problems; Develop rational, reasonable interpretations Suspend beliefs and remain open to new information, methods, cultural systems, values, and beliefs Assimilate information 4

WGCTA- Watson Glaser The Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal was designed based on a conceptualization of critical thinking as a composite of several attitudes, knowledge and skills. There are several abilities that appear to be related to Critical Thinking- The ability to define a problem The ability to select pertinent information for the solution of a problem The ability to recognize stated and unstated assumptions The ability to formulate and select relevant and promising hypotheses The ability to draw valid conclusions and judge the validity of inferences The Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test is composed of several sub-tests as follows: Test 1- Inference: Discriminating among degrees of truth or falsity of inferences drawn from given data Test 2: Recognition of Assumptions: Recognizing unstated assumptions or presuppositions in given statements or assertions Test 3: Deductions: Determining whether certain conclusions necessarily follow from information in given statements or assertions. Test 4: Interpretation: Weighing evidence and deciding if generalizations or conclusions based on the given data are warranted. Test 5: Evaluation of Arguments: Distinguishing between arguments that are strong and relevant and those that are weak or irrelevant to a particular question or issue. Even though the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking test is comprised of five sub-tests, the composite score (the sum of the scores on each sub-test) is what yields the most reliable measure of critical thinking abilities. The subtests contain relatively few items; thus lacking in reliability to evaluate specific aspects of critical thinking. The Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal may be presented in three different formats- Form A, B, or S. 5

Table 1 Watson Glaser Form A and B- Normative data Percentile Students at a community college 99 71-80 80 60-61 75 59 50 52 25 43-44 10 38-39 Reliability Split-half reliability coefficients range from 0.69 to 0.85. The estimate of the reliability of the test over time is 0.73 demonstrating reasonable stability of the measure over time. The Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal correlates highly with measures of intelligence as well as measures of academic achievement (i.e., Stanford Achievement Test, ACT, SAT, California Achievement Test). Cornell X Critical Thinking Test The Cornell X Critical Thinking Test has been used in curriculum and teaching experiments for appraisal of the critical thinking ability of a group and as a criteria for program admission and employment. There are two forms of the Cornell X Critical Thinking Test: Level X consists of a 71-item multiple choice questionnaire while Level Z is a 52-item multiple choice test. Each is intended to be taken within a 50-minute period but they can be taken in two or more sessions. The Cornell X Critical Thinking Test is composed of five sub-scales, which are defined as different aspects of the Critical Thinking definition. The subscales are described below: Table 2 Cornell X- Aspects of Critical Thinking Aspects of Critical Thinking Items Induction 3-25, 48,50 Deduction 52-65,67-76 Observation 27-50 Credibility 27-50 Assumption 67 76 As can be observed in the previous table, the different sub-scales of the Cornell X Critical Thinking Test have considerable overlap with each other. In other words, many items are assigned to more than one sub-scale. The assumption items, for instance, are also listed 6

under the deduction sub-scale. The authors argue that observation and credibility are tied together in the sense that observations made by another person, a description that fits many of these items, are subject to credibility criteria as well as criteria for making observation statements. CAAP The Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) is a post secondary assessment program designed to help institutions measure the academic achievement levels of their students in selected core academic skills. CAAP offers a test module on Critical Thinking Skills. The CAAP Critical Thinking module consists of a 32-item 40-minute test that measures students ability in clarifying, analyzing, evaluating, and extending arguments. An argument is a sequence of statements that includes a claim that one of the statements follows from another statement. A passage contains a series of arguments that support a more general conclusion or conclusions. Each paragraph consists of one or more argument formats including editorials, experimental results, and debates. Each passage is accompanied by a series of multiple choice test items. Table 3 CAAP- Normative Data Percentile Two-year private college sophomore 99 80-71 77 66 50 62 10 54 Table 4 Content Specifications of the CAAP Critical Thinking Test Content Category Proportion of Test Analysis of Elements of an argument 0.53-0.68 Evaluation of an Argument 0.16-0.28 Extension of an Argument 0.19 Total 1.0 As we analyze the findings of assessment initiatives, it is important to remember that these studies are correlational in nature (as opposed to causal). In other words, we find that there are correlations between scores on critical thinking instruments and hours completed at MCC. This is considered a positive finding; however, we must remember that we can only assert that both scores increase at the same time. We cannot assert that one causes the other. At the same time, the study presents a series of analyzes that are statistically significant. It is important to remember that, when we have a large number of participants, statistical significance becomes easier to find. Thus, we must also look at the 7

effect size. For instance, a critical thinking score may be a significant predictor of grades in a History class. However, it may only predict 2% of the variance (effect size). Table 5 Correlations Watson Glaser and MCC GPA Inference Recognition Deduction Interpretation Evaluation GPA Inference Pearson 1.246**.398**.455**.359**.177** Correlation N 877 877 876 877 877 871 Recognition Pearson.246** 1.231**.250**.217*.155** Correlation N 877 877 876 877 877 871 Deduction Pearson.398**.231** 1.453**.278**.178** Correlation N 876 876 876 876 876 870 Interpretation Pearson.455**.250**.453** 1.365**.170** Correlation N 877 877 876 877 877 871 Evaluation Pearson.359**.217**.278**.365** 1.112** Correlation N 877 877 876 877 877 871 GPA Pearson.177**.155**.178**.170**.112** 1 Correlation N 871 871 870 871 871 871 As can be observed in Table 5, all of the subscales comprised within the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Assessment correlate positively with MCC GPA. All these correlations are statistically significant to the p< 0.01 level. In other words, the higher the GPA, the higher the score on each of the scales of the Watson Glaser. It is important to note, however, that even though the correlation coefficients are significant, they are not very high (the highest being r = 0.178). We can also observe on this correlation table that the different subscales are significantly correlated with each other in a positive fashion. CAAP and GPA Table 6 Correlations between CAAP and MCC GPA SCORE GPA SCORE Pearson Correlation 1.33** N 582 582 GPA Pearson Correlation.33** 1 N 582 582 As can be observed on Table 6, the score on the CAAP is significantly correlated with MCC GPA. The correlation is positive, which means that the higher the GPA, the higher the score on the CAAP test. 8

Cornell X and GPA Table 7 Correlations Cornell X and GPA GPA Score GPA Pearson Correlation 1.29** N 1156 1156 SCORE Pearson Correlation.29** 1 N 1156 1163 Scores on the Cornell X are also significantly and positively correlated with MCC GPA. The correlation coefficient is positive which means that the higher the GPA, the higher the score on the Cornell X. Correlations Form S and MCC GPA Table 8 Correlations Form S Watson Glaser and MCC GPA GPA WGSCORE GPA Pearson Correlation 1.34* N 482 482 SCORE Pearson Correlation.34** 1 N 482 485 The Watson Glaser Form S correlates significantly with MCC GPA as can be observed on Table 8. The correlation is also positive indicating a correspondence between the GPA and the scores on this shorter version of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. Distribution of Critical Thinking scores Figure 1 shows the distribution of scores of the Watson Glaser Form A and B Inference Sub test. The distribution is depicted along with the normal curve. As can be observed, the scores fall pretty close to what would be expected according to a normal distribution. 9

Figure 1. Distribution of Scores- Inference Subscale- Watson Glaser Form A and B Figure 2. Recognition Subscale Distribution- Watson Glaser Form A and B Figure 2 shows the distribution of scores for the second subscale of the Watson Glaser (Form A and B) along with the normal curve. As can be seen, the distribution of this subscale deviates somewhat from the normal distribution. 10

Figure 3. Deduction Distribution- Watson Glaser Form A and B The distribution of the scores obtained in the Deduction subscale is presented in Figure 3 along with the normal curve. The distribution of scores in this subscale is fairly normal. Figure 4. Interpretation Distribution- Watson Glaser Form A and B Figure 4 presents the distribution of the scores obtained in the Interpretation subscale on the Watson Glaser along with the normal curve. 11

Figure 5. Evaluation Distribution- Watson Glaser Form A and B Figure 5 shows the Evaluation score distribution along with the normal curve. The distribution of this subtest fits very closely with the distribution that would be expected. Figure 6. Total Watson Glaser- Form A and B Finally, Figure 6 shows the distribution of the total score of the Watson Glaser along with the normal curve. As can be observed, the distribution fits very well with the normal curve. 12

Figure 7. Cornell X scores Figure 7 shows the distribution of scores of the Cornell X tests along with the normal curve- the scores fall within relatively normal range. Figure 8. CAAP score distribution Above is the distribution of scores for the CAAP test and the normal curve- as can be observed, the distribution is fairly normal with some skewness to the lower scores. 13

Figure 9. Form S Watson Glaser Figure 9 represents the distribution of scores of the Watson Glaser Form S. As can be observed, the mean score is 25.7. One can observe the score distribution of this test in contrast with the normal curve. Watson Glaser and hours completed Table 9 Correlations between Hours completed and WG Critical Thinking Scores Hours Total Inference Recognition Deduction Interpretation Evaluation Hours Pearson 1.125**.077*.039.073.173**.075* Correlation N 871 870 871 871 870 871 871 As can be observed on Table 9, the number of hours completed at MCC is significantly correlated to the total score on the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, and it is also correlated with Inference, Interpretation and Evaluation. However, these correlations, though statistically significant are rather weak. Table 10 T- test comparison- CAAP scores and hours completed Less than 20 hours 62.6 20 or more hours 63.1 14

Table 10 shows the comparison of the CAAP scores of students with less than 20 credit hours versus those with 20 or ore hours. The more experienced students obtained a higher CAAP sore than those less experienced; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Table 11 T- test comparison- Cornell X and hours completed Less than 20 hours 45.3 20 or more hours 46.2 Table 11 shows the comparison of the Cornell X scores of students with 20 or less credit hours versus those with more than 20 hours. As it can be observed, students with more hours scored slightly higher in the Cornell X test. Table 12 T- test comparison- Form S and hours completed Less than 20 hours 25.3 20 or more hours 27.2 Table 12 shows a t-test comparison of the mean score (Form S Watson Glaser) for those students that obtained less than 20 credit hours versus those that obtained more than 20 credit hours at MCC. There is a statistically significant difference between these two groups. The group with more hours scored higher on this Critical Thinking instrument Critical Thinking and Graduation We examined the critical thinking scores of students who have obtained a degree from MCC versus those who left without a degree. Following are the results obtained. Table 13 T- test comparison- WG and graduation status No Degree 49.5 Degree 53.7 15

Table 13 shows the comparison between the WG (Form A, B) of students who obtained a degree from MCC versus those who did not. As can be observed, students that obtained a degree from MCC had a higher Watson Glaser scores. Table 14 T- test comparison- Cornell X and graduation status No Degree 44.9 Degree 46.3 Table 14 represents the comparison between the Cornell X scores of students who obtained a degree from MCC versus those students who did not. Degreed students had a higher Cornell X score. Table 15 T- test comparison- CAAP and graduation status No Degree 62.1 Degree 62.5 Table 15 represents the comparison between the CAAP scores of students who obtained a degree from MCC versus those students who did not. There is very little difference between degreed and non-degreed students regarding their CAAP scores. Table 16 T- test comparison- Form S and graduation status No Degree 25.6 Degree 26.0 Table 16 depicts the comparison between degreed and non-degreed students and their scores on the Form S of the Watson Glaser. Those students who obtained a degree from MCC also obtained a slightly higher score on the Form S of the Watson Glaser. 16

Critical Thinking and ENGL 101 Following are the outcomes outlined in the CIF (course information form) for ENGL 101 1. Demonstrate critical thinking skills. 2. Differentiate personal opinions and assumptions from others. 3. Use outside sources to synthesize ideas from multiple perspectives. 4. Draw informed conclusions from writings and observations. 5. Argue reasoned interpretations. Table 17 ENGL 101 Grades and Scores on WG GRADE Inference Recognition Deduction Interpretation Evaluation Total A Mean 8.4 10.7 9.9 11.1 11.1 51.4 N 313 313 313 31 312 312 B Mean 7.8 10.3 9.2 10.6 10.6 48.7 N 327 327 327 327 327 327 C Mean 7.4 10.9 9.6 10.6 10.9 49.6 N 133 133 133 133 133 133 D Mean 7.5 10.8 9.3 10.4 9.5 47.7 N 30 30 30 30 30 30 F Mean 8.7 10.5 9.6 11.3 11.1 51.4 N 19 19 19 19 19 19 I, W Mean 8.3 11.1 9.9 11.0 11.2 51.6 N 78 78 78 78 78 78 Total Mean 8.0 10.6 9.6 10.8 10.9 50.0 N 900 900 900 900 899 899 As can be observed on Table 17, the scores on the different WG subtests and total score of the test drop as the grade on ENGL 101 drops from A to B. With the exception of the score obtained on the Inference subtest, the WG scores go back up when the students obtain a C on ENGL 101. A multiple regression analysis suggests that the Inference and Deduction subtests are predictors of As in ENGL 101 to a statistically significant level (R 2 = 0.015; P<0.00). 17

ENGL 101 and Cornell X Table 18 ENGL 101 and Cornell X A 46.7 262 7.3 B 44.5 228 7.5 C 43.3 130 7.6 D 44.3 20 7.1 F 44.0 24 7.1 I, W 44.1 96 8.9 Total 45.0 760 7.5 As can be observed in Table 18 the grades for ENGL 101 gradually decrease as the score on Cornell X decreases. A multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine whether scores on the Cornell X in any way predicted grades in ENGL 101. Even though there seems to be concordance between the higher grades and the score on the Cornell X, a multiple regression analysis revealed that a score on the Cornell X only predicts A s in ENGL 101 (R 2 = 0.03. P<0.00). CAAP and ENGL 101 Table 19 represents the distribution of grades and CAAP scores obtained by MCC students. The grades correspond to the CAAP scores on the instance. The lower the grade, the lower the score on the CAAP. A visual inspection of table 20 shows us that there is correspondence between the grades and score. A multiple regression analysis showed that the score on the CAAP predicts a grade of A in ENGL 101 to a statistically significant level (R 2 = 0.03; p<0.01). Table 19 CAAP and ENGL 101 A 63.0 93 4.7 B 61.8 71 5.1 C 60.4 31 4.0 D 57.6 5 4.8 F 60.8 7 6.3 I, W 62.0 11 5.4 Total 62.06 218 4.8 Watson Glaser Form S and ENGL 101 Table 20 depicts the distribution of grades in ENGL 101 and the scores obtained in the Watson Glaser form S. A visual inspection of the table suggests a correspondence between obtaining a higher grade on ENGL 101 (A, B and C) and a score on the Form S of the Watson Glaser. A multiple regression analysis showed that the score on the Form S 18

only predicts a grade of A in ENGL 101 to a statistically significant level (R 2 = 0.037, p<0.001). Table 20 Form S and Watson Glaser A 26.5 110 5.6 B 24.0 139 5.3 C 23.4 81 5.1 D 24.3 20 6.7 F 27.3 17 6.6 I, W 26.2 72 6.7 Total 25.09 439 5.5 Watson Glaser and ENGL 102 Following are the outcomes outlined in the CIF (course information form) for ENGL 102. Use critical thinking skills by differentiating personal opinions and assumptions from another s ideas, distinguishing among fact, judgment, emotion, and inference. Produce effective, clear, and accurate prose. Gather, evaluate, and synthesize information. Table 21 Watson Glaser and ENGL 102 GRADE Inference Recognition Deduction Interpretation Evaluation TOTAL A Mean 8.9 11.2 10.3 11.8 11.3 53.7 N 201 201 201 201 200 200 B Mean 8.3 10.6 9.7 11.1 11.2 51.1 N 222 222 221 222 222 221 C Mean 7.5 9.9 9.2 10.4 10.9 48.1 N 160 160 160 160 160 160 D Mean 6.4 9.8 8.7 10.2 9.8 45.2 N 23 23 23 23 23 23 F Mean 6.7 10.8 8.3 11.2 11.3 48.6 N 18 18 18 18 18 18 I, W Mean 7.9 10.1 9.6 10.9 10.8 49.9 N 92 92 92 92 92 92 Total Mean 8.2 10.8 9.7 11.1 11.1 50.7 N 716 716 715 716 715 714 Table 21 presents a breakdown of scores on the Watson Glaser (Forms A and B) and grades in ENGL 102. A visual inspection of the table reveals that the total score on the 19

Watson Glaser and the grades obtained in ENGL 102 are concordant for the most part. However, a multiple regression analysis suggests that the subtest and the total Watson Glaser scores only predict the grade of A to a statistical significant level. The Inference and Interpretation subtests are the predictive variables (R 2 = 0.04; P<0.001). ENGL 102 and CORNELL X Table 22 Cornell X and ENGL 102 A 47.1 266 7.6 B 45.9 236 7.1 C 43.5 133 6.7 D 42.5 30 8.7 F 44.6 31 7.7 I, W 44.4 122 8.3 Total 45.5 818 7.7 According to a multiple regression analysis conducted in order to determine whether the score on the Cornell X predicted grades in ENGL 102, the score is predictive to a statistically significant level (R 2 = 0.09; P<0.00). However, as can be observed by the R 2 value- the variance accounted for by the score is minimal. Table 23 ENGL 102 and CAAP A 63.0 95 4.6 B 61.8 60 5.0 C 60.2 26 4.4 D 58.6 5 1.9 F 63.0 1. I, W 61.6 26 4.6 Total 62.1 213 4.7 A multiple regression analysis revealed that the score on the CAAP predicts the grade of A in ENGL 102 (R 2 = 0.035; p<0.006). The scores do not differentiate to a statistically significant level whether a student was successful (A,B,C) or not (D,F,I,W) in this course. ENGL 102 and Form S As in the previous examples, the score on the Form S of the Watson Glaser does not predict success in ENGL 102; however, it does predict (to a statistically significant level) the presence of an A in the course (R 2 = 0.027; p<0.01). 20

Table 24 Form S and ENGL 102 grades A 26.7 121 5.7 B 25.4 133 5.4 C 23.4 62 4.8 D 23.6 15 3.8 F 22.0 15 4.8 I, W 25.1 59 4.3 Total 25.3 405 5.5 HIST 120 There are no course information forms filed for this course. Table 25 Watson Glaser and HIST 120 GRADE Inference Recognition Deduction Interpretation Evaluation TOTAL A Mean 8.5 11.0 10.0 11.2 11.3 52.21 N 181 181 181 181 181 181 B Mean 7.8 11.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 50.9 N 204 204 204 204 203 203 C Mean 7.9 10.4 9.1 10.7 10.7 49.0 N 172 172 172 172 172 172 D Mean 7.8 9.8 9.4 10.7 9.7 47.6 N 77 77 77 77 77 77 F Mean 7.1 9.7 9.5 10.3 10.7 47.6 N 51 51 51 51 51 51 I, W Mean 7.4 9.9 8.9 10.1 10.3 46.6 N 78 78 78 78 78 78 AU Mean 5.0 10.0 12.0 12.0 9.0 48.0 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total Mean 7.9 10.6 9.6 10.8 10.8 49.8 N 764 764 764 764 763 763 Table 25 depicts the distribution of Watson Glaser scores (Forms A and B) and grades on HIST 120. A multiple regression analysis revealed that the scores on the Watson Glaser were predictive of the success (A, B or C) obtained in HIST 120 to a statistically significant level. The two subtests that were predictive of success in HIST 120 are Evaluation and Recognition ( R2 =.03; P<0.00). 21

Cornell X and HIST 120 Table 26 Cornell X and HIST 120 A 48.2 93 7.6 B 48.0 193 7.3 C 44.1 227 6.9 D 41.9 86 7.4 F 43.0 41 8.4 I, W 43.8 120 10.0 Total 44.8 760 7.5 Table 26 depicts the breakdown of scores on the Cornell X and the grades obtained in HIST 120. A multiple regression analysis revealed that the score on the Cornell X is predictive of success (A, B or C) in HIST 120 to a statistically significant level (R2 = 0.027; p<0.00). CAAP and HIST 120 Table 27 CAAP and HIST 120 A 65.0 34 4.9 B 63.2 45 4.3 C 60.6 48 4.9 D 61.2 23 3.1 F 59.9 12 5.1 I, W 59.3 28.7 Total 61.8 190 4.9 Table 27 shows the distribution of scores and grades for CAAP and HIST 120. According to the results of a multiple regression analysis, the score on the CAAP is predictive of success in HIST 120 (A, B or C) to a statistically significant level (R2 = 0.063; p<0.000). 22

Form S and HIST 120 As with the CAAP, a multiple regression analysis showed that the score on the Form S of the Watson Glaser is predictive of success (A, B or C) in HIST 120 to a statistically significant level (R2 = 0.05; p<0.000). (See Table 28). Table 28 Form S and HIST 120 A 30.1 55 5.1 B 25.8 86 5.1 C 23.9 102 5.2 D 24.8 44 4.7 F 20.6 17 5.7 I 25.4 7 6.3 W 22.8 77 4.3 Total 25.0 388 5.5 HIST 121 There are no course information forms filed for this course HIST 121 and Watson Glaser Table 29 represents the breakdown of scores on the Watson Glaser (forms A and B) and grades in HIST 121. A multiple regression analysis suggests that the Watson Glaser scores predict the presence of As in HIST 121 to a statistically significant level (R2 = 0.015; p<0.05). The subtest that is predictive of As in HIST 121 is Recognition. Table 29 HIST 121 and Watson Glaser GRADE Inference Recognition Deduction Interpretation Evaluation TOTAL A Mean 7.9 11.0 9.78 10.9 11.0 50.7 N 179 179 179 179 179 179 B Mean 7.9 10.5 9.5 11.1 11.1 50.3 N 167 167 167 167 167 167 C Mean 7.8 9.4 9.8 11.1 10.3 48.5 N 124 124 124 124 124 124 D Mean 7.1 11.0 9.0 9.9 11.0 48.3 N 34 34 34 34 34 34 F Mean 7.1 10.1 8.2 10.2 11.1 46.9 N 27 27 27 27 27 27 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 W Mean 7.3 10.5 9.5 11.0 10.6 49.1 N 45 45 45 45 45 45 Total Mean 7.7 10.4 9.5 10.9 10.9 49.7 N 576 576 576 576 576 576 23

Cornell X and HIST 121 Table 30 presents the distribution of scores in the Cornell X and the grades obtained in HIST 121. According to the results of a multiple regression analysis, the score on the Cornell X is a predictor of success (A, B or C) in HIST 121 to a statistically significant level (R2 = 0.023; p<0.001). Table 30 Cornell X and HIST 121 A 48.2 119 8.0 B 46.9 183 6.8 C 43.9 165 7.7 D 43.2 67 7.3 F 41.2 26 5.7 I, W 44.5 89 7.3 Total 45.5 649 7.7 CAAP and HIST 121 Table 31 represents the breakdown of scores on the CAAP and grades in HIST 121. According to the results of a multiple regression analysis, the score on the CAAP is a predictor of success (A, B or C) in HIST 121 to a statistically significant level (R2 = 0.10; p<0.00). Table 31 CAAP and HIST 121 A 64.2 30 4.9 B 63.6 39 4.3 C 59.9 33 4.4 D 59.6 17 3.8 F 59.0 4 2.0 W 58.5 16 4.3 Total 61.6 139 4.8 Form S and HIST 121 Table 32 depicts the breakdown of the scores obtained on the Watson Glaser Form S test and grades in HIST 121. A multiple regression analysis shows that the score on the Form S of the Watson Glaser is predictive of success (A, B or C) in HIST 121 to a statistically significant level (R2 = 0.05; p<0.00). 24

Table 32 Form S and HIST 121 A 28.1 59 4.9 B 26.3 97 5.7 C 24.4 88 5.2 D 23.5 36 5.6 F 21.1 20 4.6 W 23.9 48 5.3 Total 25.3 348 5.6 HIST 133 There are no course information forms filed for this course HIST 133 and Watson Glaser No statistical significance was found regarding the ability of Watson Glaser scores to predict grades in HIST 133. This may be a factor of the low number of participants in this group. (See Table 33). Table 33 Watson Glaser and HIST 133 GRADE Inference Recognition Deduction Interpretation Evaluation TOTAL A Mean 9.2 11.2 10.1 12.0 11.5 54.3 N 41 41 41 41 41 41 B Mean 8.7 11.4 11.3 11.8 11.0 54.3 N 29 29 29 29 29 29 C Mean 9.2 9.5 10.2 11.9 11.8 52.8 N 49 49 49 49 49 49 D Mean 9.7 11.2 9.8 11.7 11.7 53.6 N 14 14 14 14 14 14 F Mean 8.3 10.0 11.6 11.33 10.0 51.3 N 3 3 3 3 3 3 W Mean 8.3 11.0 10.1 11.2 11.0 51.8 N 30 30 30 30 30 30 Total Mean 9.0 10.7 10.4 11.7 11.3 53.3 25

Cornell X and HIST 133 Table 34 depicts the distribution of scores on the Cornell X test and the grades obtained for HIST 133. A multiple regression analysis suggests that the Cornell X score is predictive of success (A, B or C) in HIST 133 to a statistically significant level (R2 = 0.024; p<0.05). Table 34 Cornell X and HIST 133 A 50.1 23 6.7 B 48.1 62 7.8 C 45.5 54 5.2 D 47.0 21 6.7 F 40.6 5 9.5 W 46.1 31 6.7 Total 47.0 196 6.9 CAAP and HIST 133 No statistical significance was found regarding the ability of CAAP scores to predict grades in HIST 133. This may be a factor of the low number of participants in this group. Table 35 CAAP and HIST 133 A 62.5 10 6.0 B 65.3 8 4.1 C 62.1 10 4.7 D 61.4 11 5.1 F 61.2 4 7.3 W 61.0 7 3.9 Total 62.3 50 5.1 Form S and HIST 133 Table 36 depicts the distribution of scores on the Form S of the Watson Glaser test and the grades obtained for HIST 133. A multiple regression analysis suggests that the Cornell X score is predictive of success (A, B or C) in HIST 133 to a statistically significant level (R2 = 0.063; p<0.05). 26

Table 36 Form S and HIST 133 A 28.1 13 5.5 B 27.4 20 4.7 C 25.2 15 5.3 D 24.4 10 5.3 F 23.6 3 5.0 W 24.0 18 6.1 Total 25.8 79 5.5 HIST 134 There are no course information files currently for this course HIST 134 and Watson Glaser No statistical significance was found regarding the ability of Watson Glaser scores to predict grades in HIST 134. This may be a factor of the low number of participants in this group. (see Table 38). Table 37 Watson Glaser and HIST 134 GRADE Inference Recognition Deduction Interpretation Evaluation TOTAL A Mean 9.0 11.0 10.9 11.8 12.2 55.0 N 36 36 36 36 36 36 B Mean 8.4 11.1 9.5 11.5 10.9 51.6 N 44 44 44 44 44 44 C Mean 8.6 11.27 11.0 11.8 11.3 54.1 N 28 28 28 28 28 28 D Mean 8.5 11.2 12.2 51.3 N 16 16 16 16 16 16 F Mean 9.3 11.0 11.0 11.6 11.5 54.5 N 6 6 6 6 6 6 W Mean 9.4 9.8 11.3 12.1 11.6 54.3 N 20 20 20 20 20 20 Total Mean 8.7 10.9 10.3 11.6 11.5 53.3 N 150 150 150 150 150 150 Cornell X and HIST 134 Table 38 depicts the distribution of scores on the Cornell X test and the grades obtained for HIST 134. A multiple regression analysis suggests that the Cornell X score is predictive of success (A, B or C) in HIST 133 to a statistically significant level (R2 = 0.042; p<0.01). 27

Table 38 Cornell X and HIST 134 A 47.4 55 7.4 B 47.3 85 6.8 C 43.9 55 6.7 D 44.3 29 7.6 F 43.4 9 6.3 W 41.9 35 5.7 Total 45.5 267 7.1 CAAP and HIST 134 No statistical significance was found regarding the ability of CAAP scores to predict grades in HIST 134. This may be a factor of the low number of participants in this group. Table 39 CAAP and HIST 134 A 64.9 16 5.0 B 65.4 5 6.2 C 60.2 7 5.3 D 62.0 5 4.3 F 57.5 2 6.3 W 60.2 7 3.5 Total 62.7 42 5.2 Form S and HIST 134 Table 40 depicts the distribution of scores on the Form S of the Watson Glaser test and the grades obtained for HIST 134. A multiple regression analysis suggests that the Cornell X score is predictive of success (A, B or C) in HIST 134 to a statistically significant level (R2 = 0.107; p<0.01). Table 40 Form S and HIST 134 A 27.8 14 5.9 B 26.4 13 4.6 C 26.1 13 4.0 D 24.2 5 4.1 F 26.0 1. W 22.2 19 5.3 Total 25.5 65 5.1 28

SPDR 100 1. List and define the general purpose of three types of speeches. 2. Organize a topic into outline form distinguishing main points from supporting points. 3. Present a strategy for effectively delivering the introduction, body, and conclusion of a speech. 4. Utilize presentation and communication skills learned in the course to deliver a speech. 5. Identify major considerations of which a speaker should be aware with respect to cultural diversity, ethics, and audience analysis. SPDR 100 and Watson Glaser Table 41 shows the distribution of Watson Glaser scores and the grades obtained in SPDR 100. A multiple regression analysis suggests that the Watson Glaser scores (Inference) can predict A s in SPDR 100 to a statistically significant level (R2 = 0.016; p<0.000). (See Table 42). Table 41 Watson Glaser and SPDR 100 GRADE Inference Recognition Deduction Interpretation Evaluation Total A Mean 8.7 11.1 10.3 11.6 11.5 53.5 N 190 190 190 190 190 190 B Mean 7.8 10.4 9.6 11.0 10.8 49.8 N 286 286 286 286 286 286 C Mean 7.8 10.4 9.4 10.6 10.9 49.4 N 96 96 96 96 96 96 D Mean 8.9 9.9 10.5 10.8 11.1 51.3 N 15 15 15 15 15 15 F Mean 7.5 8.6 9.7 11.0 12.2 49.1 N 8 8 8 8 8 8 W Mean 8.5 11.3 10.5 11.7 10.9 52.9 N 60 60 60 60 60 60 Total Mean 8.2 10.6 9.9 11.2 11.0 51.1 N 649 649 649 649 649 649 Cornell X and SPDR 100 Table 42 shows the distribution of scores on the Cornell X test and the grades in SPDR 100. A regression analysis showed that the Cornell X can predict As in SPDR 100 to a statistically significant level (R2 =.043; p<0.001). 29

Table 42 Cornell X and SPDR 100 A 47.2 292 7.0 B 44.4 282 7.4 C 42.4 113 7.8 D 41.3 26 8.0 F 41.7 10 10.5 I 38.0 5 6.4 W 45.8 68 7.0 Total 45.1 796 7.6 CAAP and SPDR 100 The distribution of CAAP scores and grades on SPDR 100 are shown in Table 43. A regression analysis showed that the scores on the CAAP are able to predict A s in SPDR 100 to a statistically significant level (R2 = 0.044; p<0.001). Table 43 CAAP and SPDR 100 A 63.4 79 5.0 B 62.1 76 5.1 C 59.4 27 3.9 D 54.5 2 3.5 F 56.6 3 4.1 W 62.4 11 4.8 Total 62.1 198 5.1 Form S and SPDR 100 Table 44 shows the distribution of the Form S (Watson Glaser) scores and grades in SPDR 100. A regression analysis showed that the scores on the Form S of the Watson Glaser can predict successful grades in SPDR 100 (A, B or C) to a statistically significant level (R2 = 0.013; p<0.05). Table 44 Form S and SPDR 100 A 27.1 120 5.7 B 24.5 140 5.2 C 23.8 68 5.0 D 22.6 11 6.6 F 26.5 7 6.0!, W 23.4 48 5.8 Total 25.1 394 5.6 30

PHIL 100 and Watson Glaser Demonstrate logical and critical thinking abilities by constructing sound arguments and evaluating traditional and contemporary philosophical arguments. Watson Glaser and PHIL 100 No statistical significance was found regarding the ability of Watson Glaser scores to predict grades in PHIL 100. By visually examining the table below, we can see that there is some correspondence between the grades in PHIL 100 and the score on the Watson Glaser. A regression analysis shows that Inference is predictive of As in PHIL 100. (R2= 0.02; p<0.05). Table 45 Watson Glaser and PHIL 100 GRADE Inference Recognition Deduction Interpretation Evaluation Total A Mean 9.3 11.2 10.6 11.7 11.3 54.1 N 78 78 78 78 77 77 B Mean 8.4 10.3 9.4 11.3 11.5 51.1 N 87 87 87 87 87 87 C Mean 8.5 10.1 9.6 11.4 10.8 50.5 N 78 78 78 78 78 78 D Mean 8.3 10.5 10.1 12.2 10.7 52.0 N 22 22 22 22 22 22 F Mean 8.9 10.4 10.8 11.5 11.5 53.2 N 24 24 24 24 24 24 I, W Mean 8.6 10.9 9.8 11.2 11.3 52.2 N 10 10 10 10 10 10 Total Mean 8.78 10.6 9.9 11.5 11.25 52.0 N 338 338 338 338 337 337 Cornell X and PHIL 100 Table 46 shows the distribution of Cornell X scores and grades in PHIL 100. A regression analysis shows that the scores on the Cornell X are predictive of the success (A, B, C) in PHIL 100 to a statistically significant level ( R2= 0.031; p<0.001). Table 46 described this breakdown. Table 46 Cornell X and PHIL 100 A 48.0 67 7.4 B 47.4 80 7.9 C 46.3 101 7.4 D 43.6 43 7.0 F 42.0 15 7.4 I, W 45.2 52 7.8 Total 46.2 361 7.60 31

CAAP and PHIL 100 Table 47 CAAP and PHIL 100 A 64.9 41 4.6 B 63.1 34 5.2 C 62.6 30 5.0 D 60.4 18 3.6 F 61.8 5 3.7 I, W 58.5 18 3.9 Total 62.6 146 4.9 Table 47 is a breakdown of the scores obtained on the CAAP as well as the grades obtained in PHIL 100. A multiple regression analysis revealed that the CAAP scores are predictive of success (A, B, C) in PHIL 100 to a statistically significant level (R2 = 0.109; p<0.000). This means that scores on CAAP account for 10% of the variance n grades for PHIL 100. Form S and PHIL 100 As can be seen on Table 48, there is a visual correspondence between scores on the Form S of the Watson Glaser and grades obtained in PHIL 100. A multiple regression analysis confirmed that scores on the Form s predict grades in PHIL 100 (R2 = 0.052; p<0.001). Table 48 Form S and PHIL 100 A 28.5 31 5.4 B 27.0 51 5.2 C 25.6 61 5.3 D 21.7 26 5.5 F 24.6 14 6.9 I, W 25.0 32 6.0 Total 25.8 215 5.7 32

PHIL 200 1. Identify arguments and their component parts, premises and conclusions. 2. Construct different types of definitions. 3. Identify common fallacies in argumentation. 4. Evaluate deductive arguments for validity and soundness. 5. Evaluate inductive arguments for cogency and reliability. 6. Construct sound arguments in response to practical and philosophical problems and questions. PHIL 200 and Watson Glaser No statistical significance was found regarding the ability of Watson Glaser scores to predict grades in PHIL 200. By visually examining the table below, we can see that there is some correspondence between the grades in PHIL 200. A regression analysis was not performed due to low numbers on each cell. Table 49 PHIL 200 and Watson Glaser GRADE Inference Recognition Deduction Interpretation Evaluation TOTAL A Mean 11.4 9.8 12.0 13.3 11.9 58.6 N 13 13 13 13 13 13 B Mean 11.1 13.8 12.6 13.6 13.0 64.3 N 13 13 13 13 13 13 C Mean 8.0 7.8 10.5 12.1 10.8 49.3 N 6 6 6 6 6 6 D Mean 10.5 15.0 14.0 14.5 10.0 64.0 N 2 2 2 2 2 2 F Mean 10.0 7.0 13.0 15.0 13.5 58.5 N 2 2 2 2 2 2 W Mean 9.0 4.5 11.5 12.5 12.0 49.5 N 2 2 2 2 2 2 Total Mean 10.5 10.7 12.1 13.3 12.1 58.8 N 38 38 38 38 38 38 Cornell X and PHIL 200 Table 50 shows the distribution of Cornell X scores and grades in PHIL 200. According to a multiple regression analysis, Cornell X scores predict 1.6% of the variance in the success of students in this course (obtaining A, B or C). R2 = 0.016; p<0.000). 33

Table 50 Cornell X and PHIL 200 A 54.8 17 6.1 B 47.9 12 7.2 C 47.7 22 6.0 D 40.0 5 7.3 F 46.0 5 4.8 W 44.2 18 7.4 Total 47.8 79 7.6 CAAP and PHIL 200 Table 51 presents the distribution of CAAP scores along with the grades obtained in PHIL 200. A regression analysis showed that CAAP scores are significant predictors of success (A, B or C) in PHIL 200; up to 8% of the variance in success is accounted for by the CAAP scores. (R2= 0.078; p>0.000). Table 51 CAAP and PHIL 200 A 66.0 18 4.5 B 63.7 8 4.4 C 59.6 6 4.4 D 57.0 2 5.6 I, W 62.3 3 3.0 Total 63.7 37 5.0 Form S and PHIL 200 Table 52 depicts the breakdown of scores on the Form S of the Watson Glaser accompanied by grades obtained in PHIL 200. The scores on the Form S are also significantly predictive of grades in PHIL 200 (R2= 0.068; p<0.05). Table 52 Form S and PHIL 200 A 30.1 13 5.0 B 27.6 19 6.4 C 27.7 15 5.1 D 26.1 6 5.1 F 26.5 2 3.5 I, W 24.2 11 7.7 Total 27.4 66 5.7 34

SOCI 160 1. Learn basic sociological concepts 2. Learn basic sociological theories 3. Develop the ability to draw sociological inferences from observations 4. Develop an informed appreciation of other cultures 5. Develop the ability to critically analyze social issues SOCI 160 and Watson Glaser No statistical significance was found regarding the ability of Watson Glaser scores to predict grades in SOCI 160. By visually examining the table below, we can see that there is some correspondence between the grades in SOCI 160 and the score on the Watson Glaser; however, this correspondence does not reach statistical significance. It is important to note that, for all grade groups, the highest subscale scores were found for Interpretation and Evaluation. Table 53 SOCI 160 and Watson Glaser GRADE Inference Recognition Deduction Interpretation Evaluation TOTAL A Mean 8.6 11.1 10.4 11.6 11.5 53.4 N 87 87 87 87 87 87 B Mean 8.8 11.2 10.2 11.3 11.5 53.2 N 116 116 116 116 116 116 C Mean 7.5 9.6 9.3 10.3 10.8 47. 6 N 119 119 119 119 119 119 D Mean 9.1 11.4 10.1 11.2 11.2 53.2 N 34 34 34 34 34 34 F Mean 7.1 9.8 8.8 10.3 10.5 46.7 N 19 19 19 19 19 19 W Mean 10.4 9.6 10.6 11.2 11.6 53.7 N 26 26 26 26 26 26 Total Mean 8.4 10.5 10.0 11.0 11.2 51.3 N 401 401 401 401 401 401 Cornell X and SOCI 160 Table 54 depicts the distribution of Cornell X scores and grades in SOCI 160. A regression analysis showed that Cornell X scores predict success in SOCI 160 (R2 = 0.02; p<0.003). The magnitude of the effect size is rather small however (only 2% of the variance accounted for). 35

Table 54 Cornell X and SOCI 160 A 48.0 91 6.9 B 46.1 143 7.5 C 44.1 152 6.9 D 43.6 99 7.0 F 43.2 11 8.9 I, W 43.6 64 7.0 Total 45.1 560 7.3 CAAP and SOCI 160 Table 55 shows the distribution of grades in SOCI 160 and scores on the CAAP. The CAAP scores are significant predictors of success in SOCI 160 (R2= 0.09; p<0.0001). The scores account for 9% of the variance in the success rate of students enrolled in SOCI 160. Table 55 CAAP and SOCI 160 A 65.0 23 4.1 B 61.6 29 4.3 C 60.6 25 4.0 D 58.6 14 4.0 F 58.6 5 4.0 I, W 60.5 6. Total 61.5 102 4.6 Form S and SOCI 160 By visually examining the table below, we can see that there is a correspondence between scores on the Form S of the Watson Glaser and grades obtained in SOCI 160. However, no statistical significance was found regarding the ability of CAAP scores to predict grades in SOCI 160. Table 56 Form S and SOCI 160 A 27.1 70 5.3 B 24.9 99 5.0 C 23.7 88 5.0 D 23.1 37 4.5 F 23.8 16 6.2 W 25.3 18 5.3 Total 24.8 327 5.3 36

PSYCH 140 1. Explain the scientific basis and methodology of psychology. 2. Describe the organization and structure of the central nervous system and be able to identify the functions of its major components. 3. Describe the basic theories and principles of developmental psychology related to physical, cognitive, social, and emotional domains. 4. Distinguish between sensation and perception, explain basic sensory processing, and identify the major factors influencing perception. 5. Compare and contrast the basic forms of learning and evaluate current applications of these principles. 6. Identify and describe basic memory functions. 7. Explain and critique the major theories of personality. 8. Distinguish between the primary sources of motivation and their effects on behavior. 9. Specify the key components of stress, health, and emotional experience. 10. Classify psychological disorders into categories based on current DSM definitions. Differentiate abnormal from normal behavior and recognize the cultural, biological and social factors that impact the distinction. 11. Evaluate current models of the treatment of psychological disorders. 12. Describe the major factors influencing individuals in social situations PSYC 140 and Watson Glaser Table 57 depicts the distribution of Watson Glaser subscale scores and grades in PSYC 140. A multiple regression analysis revealed that the scores on the different Watson Glaser subscales are significant predictors of success in this course (A, B or C)- R2 = 0.036; p<0.001). It is important to note that, this effect, though statistically significant, represents a minor predictive value (3.6% of the variance). Table 57 PSYC 140 and Watson Glaser GRADE Inference Recognition Deduction Interpretation Evaluation TOTAL A Mean 8.8 11.2 10.4 11.6 11.4 53.6 N 185 185 185 185 185 185 B Mean 8.0 10.2 9.6 10.72 11.1 49.7 N 258 258 258 258 257 257 C Mean 7.7 9.7 9.2 10.6 10.4 47.8 N 160 160 160 160 160 160 D Mean 6.5 9.9 8.8 10.3 10.5 46.1 N 61 61 61 61 61 61 F Mean 6.4 8.2 9.2 10.5 11.0 45.6 N 27 27 27 27 27 27 I, W Mean 7.6 10.1 9.8 10.5 9.8 48.2 N 71 71 71 71 71 71 Total Mean 7.9 10.2 9.6 10.8 10.8 49.7 N 762 762 762 762 761 761 37

PSYC 140 and Cornell X Table 58 shows the distribution of Cornell X scores along with the distribution of grades in PSYC 140. A multiple regression analysis revealed that the Cornell X scores predict 5% of the variance in the success rates (A, B or C) of students in PSYC 140. (R2 = 0.052; p<0.000). Table 58 Cornell X and PSY 140 A 48.8 142 7.0 B 46.7 226 7.2 C 42.9 202 6.9 D 41.5 94 7.0 F 41.4 51 7.3 I, W 43.5 102 7.3 Total 44.8 817 7.5 CAAP and PSYC 140 Table 59 shows the distribution of Cornell X scores along with the grade distribution for PSYC 140 students. A regression analysis suggests that CAAP scores are significant predictors of grades in PSYC 140 (R2 = 0.092; p<0.000). Table 59 CAAP and PSYC 140 A 66.4 31 4.1 B 62.2 42 4.5 C 60.9 36 5.1 D 60.8 16 4.6 F 57.7 7 3.1 W 59.3 25 4.9 Total 61.9 157 5.1 Form S and PSYC 140 Table 60 shows the distribution of scores for the Watson Glaser Form S test and the grades obtained in PSYC 140. By visually examining this table, we can see that there is a significant correspondence between the scores on the Form S and grades obtained in PSYC 140. A regression analysis indicates that this correspondence is statistically significant (R 2 = 0.053; p<0.000). In other words, Form S scores are significant predictors of success in PSYC 140 (A, B or C), even though the effect size is small (% of the variance). \ 38

Table 60 Form S and PSYC 140 A 28.4 71 5.4 B 25.4 100 5.1 C 24.2 94 4.9 D 23.8 50 6.0 F 20.0 27 5.0 I, W 23.6 61 5.4 Total 24.8 403 5.6 READ 100 1. Demonstrate increased ability in word recognition and vocabulary for college-level work through the use of decoding, context clues, structural analysis and the dictionary. 2. State the central idea of a given college-level passage, distinguish essential from non-essential details, evaluate the author s purpose and bias, interpret visual aids, draw conclusions, organize, use and remember ideas. 3. Demonstrate critical reading/thinking skills, analyze content and apply problem-solving techniques as applied to a given college-level passage. 4. Read and discuss selections containing factual information and social issues reflecting diverse values and beliefs such as those found in college texts. 5. Compose brief written reader-responses and/or summaries to various selections. READ 100 and Watson Glaser Table 61 shows the distribution of the Watson Glaser subtests scores and the grades in READ 100. The Deduction subtest of the Watson Glaser has been shown to be predictive of success (A, B or C) in READ 100 to a statistically significant level (R2 = 0.12; p<0.000). According to a regression analysis performed on these data, the deduction subtest of the Watson Glaser accounts for 12% of the variance in the success rate in READ 100. Table 61 READ 100 and Watson Glaser GRADE Inference Recognition Deduction Interpretation Evaluation TOTAL A Mean 6.0 9.7 8.4 8.5 8.8 41.5 N 28 28 28 28 28 28 B Mean 7.1 10.3 8.2 10.0 10.2 46.0 N 35 35 35 35 35 35 C Mean 7.6 10.1 7.9 8.8 10.2 44.7 N 15 15 15 15 15 15 D Mean 6.8 10.6 12.0 10.1 12.5 52.1 N 6 6 6 6 6 6 39

Table 61 READ 100 and Watson Glaser (Continued) F Mean 7.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 11.0 42.0 N 2 2 2 2 2 2 I, W Mean 5.8 9.9 9.4 10.3 9.2 45.0 N 11 11 11 11 11 11 Total Mean 6.7 10.0 8.6 9.4 9.8 44.7 N 97 97 97 97 97 97 Cornell X and READ 100 A visual inspection of Table 62 shows a correspondence between scores on the Cornell X and grades in READ 100. However, this correspondence is not statistically significant. Table 62 Cornell X and READ 100 A 45.3 16 7.1 B 39.6 14 8.2 C 35.0 15 8.2 D 40.8 7 6.5 F 49.0 1. W 40.8 7 10.1 Total 40.4 60 8.6 CAAP and READ 100 No analysis was performed on these data due to the low number of participants. Table 63 CAAP and READ 100 A 61.5 2 3.5 B 61.6 3 3.5 C 56.0 1. Total 60.6 6 3.5 Form S and READ 100 A visual inspection of Table 64 shows a correspondence between scores on the Form S and grades in READ 100. However, this correspondence is not statistically significant 40

Table 64 Form S and READ 100 A 23.2 26 4.8 B 22.5 26 4.5 C 20.0 9 6.5 D 23.6 5 2.8 W 22.2 7 3.4 Total 22.5 73 4.8 READ 108 1. Describe three different study strategies that can be used to create a successful college experience. 2. Access relevant college services and identify campus procedures. 3. Identify his/her own personal learning styles. 4. Locate and use a variety of learning resources. 5. Demonstrate specific methods to recall information. 6. Identify and use appropriate time management tools. 7. Demonstrate application of specific textbook strategies. 8. Demonstrate application of specific note taking methods. 9. Identify the processes used in effective test preparation. 10. Demonstrate application of specific test taking strategies. READ 108 and Watson Glaser No statistical significance was found regarding the ability of Watson Glaser scores to predict grades in READ 108. By visually examining the table below, we can see that there is some correspondence between the grades in READ 108 and the score on the Watson Glaser; however, this correspondence does not reach statistical significance. It is important to note that, for all grade groups, the highest subscale scores were found for Interpretation, Evaluation and Recognition. 41