Use of Cognitive Measures by the College Board

Institution

Names

Introduction

The College Board is a private company based in Manhattan, New York City that connects students to universities and colleges. Established in 1900, the organisation creates and facilitates student access to higher education across the United States. Its business model consists of having a membership alliance of institutions (Schmitt et al. 2011). The membership consists of some 6,000 major education institutions across the globe, committed to supporting equity and excellence in education. The organisation connects more than 7 million students to colleges each year, using cognitive measures such as Advanced Placement Program and SAT. It also conducts periodic researches on education trends globally. This paper examines the methods and measurements the company uses to evaluate and predict performance of students after their selection and subsequent admission in colleges.

In an effort to evaluate and consider approaches to student admission in colleges, the College Board usually uses an empirical means of measuring past academic attainment, in addition to primary math and verbal ability based on the view that such abilities are capable of predicting subsequent college academic grades. The organisation also believes that measures such as SAT, as well as high school general point average (GPA) predict student performance. Despite this, it is critical to argue that since most universities also aim to develop students in gaining social responsibility, leadership, multicultural appreciation and integrity, the SAT and GPA maybe unreliable and less valid in this regard (Schmitt et al. 2011). To overcome these looming downsides, this paper argues that the College Board should use a set of other constructs, such as situational judgment inventory, personality tests and biodata measures.

Cognitive measures: Achievement tests and standardised cognitive ability

Components of college admission process that the College Board uses are the record of high school achievement and standard test scores. Studies have indicated that the two measures are indeed effective in predicting college success (Schmitt & Kunce, 2002; Sackett et al. 2009). The achievement tests and standardised cognitive ability tests, such as SAT are administered to a large body of students at the same time before being efficiently and objectively scored to make them digestible by institutions that need to process a huge number of applicants. Due to this, the tests can be regarded as measures that can accumulate knowledge that the students have gained during their preceding educational experiences.

Types of College Board Tests

The various tests provided by the College Board include the SAT reasoning test, Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test, College level Examination program and Accuplacer tests. SAT reasoning test refers to a standardised test designed for college admissions in the US. The College Board administers the SAT. The SAT subject test measure student performance in certain areas, such as history, math, and science.

The Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT) is a standardised test that serves as a qualifying test for scholarships such as the National Merit Scholarship Corporation scholarship programs. It further offers first-hand practice for SAT Reasoning tests. College level Examination program (CLEP) presents students with a chance to show their college level achievement, through exams administered in undergraduate courses. The Accuplacer test consists of a computer-based test that aims to evaluate writing, reading and math skills. College Board’s Accuplacer tests are used by more than 1,000 colleges and high schools to evaluate student’s placement.

Analysis of College Board Cognitive Tests

The standardised tests that College Board uses demonstrate huge differences in subgroup performance. This, in essence, is a disadvantage to minority students when the tests are deployed in making admission decisions. Additionally, it is reasoned that other cognitive measures should, at this stage, be used to adequately predict students who fail or succeed, as well as to offer more holistic insight into students’ potential (Schmitt et al. 2011).

In order to assess non-cognitive student abilities, the College Board recommends that institutions should evaluate student portfolios such as applicant essays, interviews and letters of recommendations. Other measures suggested include evaluation evidence of participation in community activities and extracurricular activities. The methods of assessing information from these supplemental materials vary (Sackett et al. 2001). The materials can be rated to determine student’s potential. Additionally, the extracurricular activities and the essay can be rated. Later, the ratings are combined with the standardised test scores to decide on which students should be admitted.

In making the ratings, the materials used may differ. For instance, ratings may be formed based on the personal qualities identifiable in the letter of recommendation. Similarly, the College Board may also base its decision on the account of information on participation in volunteer community activities. At the same time, the decision may be based on the standardised test scores (Schmitt et al. 2011).

On critical analysis, these make it difficult to determine the suitable constructs for evaluating certain groups or subgroups or students or the extent to which different College Board’s raters may agree on the students’ potential. Hence, it is difficult to conclude that such evaluation criteria are uniform or systematic across different student applicants. Despite the potential problems and inconsistencies, the College Board has showed a growing interest in including non-cognitive factors in the admission process (Schmitt et al. 2011).

Several studies have examined meta-cognitive skills, personality traits, creative problem-solving skills, study attitudes and motivation as critical predictors of student performance (Schmitt & Kunce, 2002). Several meta-analysis studies have documented that measures such as study motivation, study habits and study skills are more valid predictors of student performance compared to standardised test scores that the College Board uses. Additionally, some institutions have argued that the college experience is complex and develops from both cognitive and non-cognitive factors (Schmitt & Kunce, 2002).

Despite these concerns, the College Board continues to predict the outcome of college experience based on comparatively narrow criteria, such as SAT. While cognitive measures that the College Board uses, such as SAT are good predictors of student performance in college and early student career, the fact that it mainly uses cognitive measures makes it less valid. More relevant to this purpose is since non-cognitive attributes can also greatly be valid predictors given the multifaceted nature of the post-secondary education (Schmitt et al. 2011). Additionally, non-cognitive measures correlate with other valuable student performance dimensions beyond what is reflected in college grades.

Conclusion

The College Board should use a set of other constructs such as situational judgment inventory, personality tests and biodata measures. Analysis of these methods shows that the tools are capable of presenting better representation of the total relevant student outcomes. In addition to providing a better perspective of what should be expected from the students, there is a need to shift to a more comprehensive conceptualisation of subsequent student performance, as it can result to a greatly diverse student body. To this end, a more holistic consideration of such alternative dimensions of student performance can result to adoption of non-cognitive measures of student performance. In contrast to cognitive measures, the non-cognitive measures often exhibit minimal sub-group differences. In which case, their application in making admission decisions can augment the likelihood of admission of students from minority groups or sub-groups, whose scores on the SAT or ACT tend to be lower. To this end, the need to implement and apply performance measures and assessment methods that assess the actual depth of student development is crucial.

References

Sackett, P. R., Schmitt, N., Ellingson, J. E., & Kabin, M.B. (2001). High-stakes testing in employment, credentialing, and higher education: Prospects in a post-affirmative action world. American Psychologist, 56, 302–318.

Sackett, P. R., Kuncel, N. R., Arneson, J. J., Cooper, S. R., & Waters, S. D. (2009). Does socioeconomic status explain the relationship between admissions tests and postsecondary academic performance? Psychological Bulletin, 135, 1–22.

Schmitt, N., Billington, A., Keeney, J., Reeder, M., Pleskac, T. Sinha, R. & Zorzie, M. (2011). Development and Validation of Measures of Noncognitive College Student Potential. Manhattan: The College Board

Schmitt, N., & Kunce, C. (2002). The effect of required elaboration of answers to noncognitive measures. Personnel Psychology, 55, 569–588.