IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v5y2015i4p2158244015615921.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Use of Course Grades in the Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes for General Education

Author

Listed:
  • Merle L. Canfield
  • Trisha M. Kivisalu
  • Carol Van Der Karr
  • Chelsi King
  • Colleen E. Phillips

Abstract

The reliability and validity of course grades as measures of general education learning outcomes were assessed using the multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) proposed by Campbell and Fiske. Convergent validity and discriminant validity were assessed on college undergraduate students over a 12-year period. Two procedures were used to test the MTMM. The first procedure was a nested confirmatory factor analysis proposed by Widaman. The second procedure, proposed here, was a direct method to assess discriminant and convergent validity. The analyses were calculated on two different data sets. The data sets included discipline majors and general education categories. Convergent validity and discriminant validity were supported.

Suggested Citation

  • Merle L. Canfield & Trisha M. Kivisalu & Carol Van Der Karr & Chelsi King & Colleen E. Phillips, 2015. "The Use of Course Grades in the Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes for General Education," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(4), pages 21582440156, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:5:y:2015:i:4:p:2158244015615921
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244015615921
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244015615921
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244015615921?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Walstad, William B & Becker, William E, 1994. "Achievement Differences on Multiple-Choice and Essay Tests in Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(2), pages 193-196, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jan DeWaters & Susan Powers & Felicity Bilow, 2021. "An Introductory Energy Course to Promote Broad Energy Education for Undergraduate Engineering Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-22, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. María Paz Espinosa & Javier Gardeazabal, 2013. "Do Students Behave Rationally in Multiple Choice Tests? Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 9(2), pages 107-135, July.
    2. P. Everaert & N. Arthur, 2012. "Constructed-response versus multiple choice: the impact on performance in combination with gender," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 12/777, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    3. Douglas McKee & Steven Zhu & George Orlov, 2023. "Econ-assessments.org: Automated Assessment of Economics Skills," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 49(1), pages 4-14, January.
    4. W. Robert Reed & Stephen Hickson, 2011. "More Evidence on the Use of Constructed-Response Questions in Principles of Economics Classes," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 10(2), pages 28-49.
    5. Zapechelnyuk, Andriy, 2015. "An axiomatization of multiple-choice test scoring," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 24-27.
    6. W. Doyle Smith, 2002. "Applying Angelo's Teacher's Dozen to Undergraduate Introductory Economics Classes: A Call for Greater Interactive Learning," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 28(4), pages 539-549, Fall.
    7. William E. Becker & Carol Johnston, 1999. "The Relationship between Multiple Choice and Essay Response Questions in Assessing Economics Understanding," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 75(4), pages 348-357, December.
    8. Bagues, Manuel & Perez-Villadoniga, Maria J., 2012. "Do recruiters prefer applicants with similar skills? Evidence from a randomized natural experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 12-20.
    9. Abhijit Sharma, 2015. "Use of Bloomberg Professional in support of finance and economics teaching," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1115618-111, December.
    10. Zhou Yang & Martin Tackie, 2016. "Risk Preference and Student Behavior on Multiple-Choice Exams," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(1), pages 58-67.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:5:y:2015:i:4:p:2158244015615921. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.