Student tracking finds limited learning in collegeYou are told that to make it in life, you must go to college. You work hard to get there. You or your parents drain savings or take out huge loans to pay for it all.
And you end up learning ... not much.
A study of more than 2,300 undergraduates found 45 percent of students show no significant improvement in the key measures of critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing by the end of their sophomore years.
I have seen this to an extent, teaching courses. However, these are things they should have been able to do effectively, before college.
Not much is asked of students, either. Half did not take a single course requiring 20 pages of writing during their prior semester, and one-third did not take a single course requiring even 40 pages of reading per week.
Lets see here, 40 pages per class + 5 classes = 200 pages per week of reading. Sure, while that doesn't sound terrible on its own, when you add in expected extracurricular activities, work, projects, etc it adds up quickly. I am all for improving the education system, but quickly reading pages from a book and not spending time to "soak it up" or reflect on what it all means is not an effective learning strategy. In theory if you coupled the reading with in class discussions this might be effective, but I am sure most of us have not experienced this in at least some of our courses.
The study, an unusually large-scale effort to track student learning over time, comes as the federal government, reformers and others argue that the U.S. must produce more college graduates to remain competitive globally. But if students aren't learning much, that calls into question whether boosting graduation rates will provide that edge.
"It's not the case that giving out more credentials is going to make the U.S. more economically competitive," Arum said in an interview. "It requires academic rigor ... You can't just get it through osmosis at these institutions."
Academic rigor is needed, unfortunately many coming into college are not well prepared for it.
The book is based on information from 24 schools, meant to be a representative sample, that provided Collegiate Learning Assessment data on students who took the standardized test in their first semester in fall 2005 and at the end of their sophomore years in spring 2007. The schools took part on the condition that their institutions not be identified.
The Collegiate Learning Assessment has its share of critics who say it doesn't capture learning in specialized majors or isn't a reliable measure of college performance because so many factors are beyond their control.
I would like to see their raw data.
The research found an average-scoring student in fall 2005 scored seven percentage points higher in spring of 2007 on the assessment. In other words, those who entered college in the 50th percentile would rise to the equivalent of the 57th after their sophomore years.
Overall, the picture doesn't brighten much over four years. After four years, 36 percent of students did not demonstrate significant improvement, compared to 45 percent after two.
Students who studied alone, read and wrote more, attended more selective schools and majored in traditional arts and sciences majors posted greater learning gains.
It seems rather obvious that if you read and wrote more you would have greater learning gains.
Social engagement generally does not help student performance. Students who spent more time studying with peers showed diminishing growth and students who spent more time in the Greek system had decreased rates of learning, while activities such as working off campus, participating in campus clubs and volunteering did not impact learning.
I do not buy, for even one second, that "working off campus, participating in campus clubs and volunteering did not impact learning." For myself and many others I know, these involvements directly impacted the amount of time we had to study and read.
I am not sure how they conclude that less available time does not impact time spent studying... The only possible way I could follow their conclusions is if this was offset by those "less academically inclined" spending their extra time partying/etc. so it draws down the available time to the same level...?
Students from families with different levels of parental education enter college with different learning levels but learn at about the same rates while attending college. The racial gap between black and white students going in, however, widens: Black students improve their assessment scores at lower levels than whites.
Arum and Roksa spread the blame, pointing to students who don't study much and seek easy courses and a culture at colleges and universities that values research over good teaching.
Available study time should be considered, as it relates directly to college costs. High college costs = needed student job = less time to study. Of course I haven't gone out and conducted an extensive study on this, but it seems plausible and I have experienced this in real life, as I am sure many of you have also.
Subsequent research found students one year out of college are not faring well: One-third moved back home, and 10 percent were unemployed. The findings are troubling news for an engaged citizenry, Arum said.
The economy; couple that with employers that want a master's degree and 3 years experience for entry level positions and its a no-win situation. If many employers aren't willing to hire recent grads for their entry level positions then its going to be a vicious cycle of unemployment and graduates.
Almost half of those surveyed said they rarely if ever discuss politics or public affairs with others either in person or online.
I am surprised and I am not at the same time. Some students are very involved, some not at all.
Opinions?