Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
[Original Message]
From: James McLean <mclean@GENESEO.EDU>
and
John Clement wrote:
Generally students who do well can discuss and tell you what they
understand. So I do see a correlation between high evaluation scores
usingother indicators. But more to the point, these tests were developed
interviewother written and verbal evaluations. They were developed using
but youprotocols, so they are certainly fairly accurate.
...
The bottom line is that you may be achieving exactly what you think,
_______________________________________________have little hard evidence unless you pre and posttest using these
instruments.
Does this strike anyone else as internally inconsistent?
* The basis for the validity of "these tests" is detailed interviews, etc.
* Yet, having the results of detailed interviews (as Edmiston described)
is considered "little hard evidence".
Sure, the detailed interviews would make comparisons between
institutions difficult, even if they were recorded (which I'm sure they
were not). But such a comparison is irrelevant to the conclusion being
drawn.
Sorry for a post that will be meaningless unless you have followed the
thread...
--
Dr. James McLean phone: (585) 245-5897