(in
press) Diversity, Merit, and Higher Education: Toward a
Comprehensive Agenda for the 21st Century. AMS Press.
William E. Sedlacek
There has
been a recent focus on “college readiness” in educational literature. This is
an important shift in emphasis from viewing admissions in higher education as a
function separate from the wide range of attributes a student will need once
enrolled (Conley, 2005). While readiness
for college includes taking the appropriate courses, getting good grades, and
scoring well on admissions tests, there is evidence that many other attributes
will determine whether most students will succeed in higher education.
Courses
While students will continue to need
courses in math, English, foreign language etc. there has been a tendency among
educators and college admissions staff to feel that more is better. The logic
goes that if we would just require more math courses, students would be better
prepared. However, the law of diminishing marginal utility becomes relevant at some
point. For example, Sawyer (2008) in a study of 245,175 students from 9,507 high
schools who took the EXPLORE (8th grade), PLAN (10th grade),
and ACT (12th grade) tests, concluded that taking additional
standard college preparatory courses in high school, taking advanced/honors
courses, and earning higher grades would, by themselves, only modestly
increased the percentage of students who leave high school adequately prepared
to take credit-bearing courses in the first year of college. Sawyer also
concluded that taking additional courses and earning higher grades mostly
benefit students who by grade eight are already well “on-target” in preparing
themselves for higher education and that psychosocial variables such as
motivation, self-discipline, and social connectedness were important
developmental variables that also need to be considered.
In summary, up to a point, more math and
other courses are useful in preparing students for higher education. Beyond
that point other variables become more important to student success. Some ideas
for what these variables might be will be discussed below.
Grades
Recent literature has shown that grades are becoming increasing less
useful as indicators of student achievement or as predictors of future student
success. This is largely due to the statistical artifact that students at all
levels of education are being assigned higher grades. Are current students just
smarter and/or more accomplished than their predecessors? This seems unlikely,
but even if true, it does not help us prepare students for higher education,
since grades no longer appear as useful in differentiating student academic
achievement as they once were.
Grades have become more of a constant
because of “grade inflation”. For
example, Woodruff & Ziomek, (2004) found that the
mean grade point average (GPA) of high school students taking the ACT assessment had
increased from 1991 to 2003 a total of .20 to .26 points on a four-point system
depending on the subject area. Rojstaczer (2009)
showed that the GPA in higher education nationally had risen from 2.94 in 1991–92
to 3.11 in 2006-07, on a four-point system.
Marquardt (2009) noted that some
school districts in
Tests
Admissions tests were created initially to help select as well as advise
students.
They were
intended to be useful to educators making decisions about students. While they
were always considered to be useful in evaluating candidates, tests were also
considered to be more equitable than using prior grades because of the
variation in quality among preparatory schools. The College Board has long felt
that the SAT was limited in what it measured and should not be relied upon as
the only tool to judge applicants (Angoff,
1971).
In 1993, the
verbal and mathematical reasoning sections of the SAT were lengthened and the
multiple-choice Test of Standard Written English was dropped. The name was
changed from Scholastic Aptitude Test to Scholastic Assessment Tests, while
retaining the SAT initials. Currently it is just called the SAT-I. In 2003, the College Board announced that an
essay would be added and the analogies item type removed as of 2005. Despite various changes and versions over the
years, the SAT in essence measures what it did in 1926, verbal and math
ability; it is basically still a general intelligence test (Sedlacek, 2003,
2004).
We seem to have come to a point where
the “Big Test” has become the primary object of attention in many schools (Lemann, 2000). It has become the standard by which we judge
ourselves and others. Many assume that if an individual has high ACT, SAT, or
Graduate Record Examination (GRE) scores, or if a school has high mean scores
on such tests, the students must be learning something, and the school must be
good. To cite that common metaphor; the tail is wagging the dog.
Standardized tests remain
controversial in general, particularly their fairness for people of color
(Helms, 2009). Much of the debate centers on statistical artifacts, measurement
problems, and poor research methodology, including biased samples and
inappropriate statistical analyses and interpretations (Sackett,
Borneman & Connelly, 2009). While this discussion and controversy is
useful and interesting to academics, we may have lost track of why tests were
developed to begin with, and how they can be used. Test results should be
useful to educators, student service workers, and administrators, by providing
the basis to help students learn better and to analyze their needs. As
currently designed, tests do not accomplish these objectives. Many teachers
tend to teach to get the highest test scores for their students, student
service workers may ignore the tests, and too many administrators are satisfied
if the average test scores rise in their school. We need some things from our
tests that currently we are not getting. We need measures that are fair to all
and provide a good assessment of the developmental and learning needs of
students, while being useful in selecting outstanding applicants. Our current
tests don’t do that.
The world is much different than it
was when the SAT and other tests were developed in the last century.
International students, women, people of color, gays, lesbians and bisexuals,
and people with disabilities among others, are participating in higher
education in more extensive and varied ways (Knapp, Kelly, Whitmore, Wu & Gallego, 2002). Commonly employed tests have not kept up
with these changes (Sedlacek, 2004a).
We need a new approach. It is not
good enough to feel constrained by the limitations of our current ways of
conceiving of tests. Instead of asking; “How can we make the SAT and other such
tests better?” we need to ask; “What kinds of measures will meet our needs now
and in the future?” The purpose of this chapter is to present the underlying
logic and research supporting a method that yields such measures. We do not
need to ignore our current tests, we need to add some new measures that expand
the potential we can derive from assessment.
Noncognitive is used here to refer to variables relating to
adjustment, motivation, and student perceptions, rather than the traditional
verbal and quantitative (often called cognitive) areas typically measured by
standardized tests (Sedlacek, 1998a,b;2004a). While noncognitive variables are useful for all students, they provide viable alternatives in fairly
assessing the abilities of people of color, women, international students, older
students, students with disabilities, or others with experiences that are
different than those of young, White, heterosexual, able-bodied, Eurocentric
males in the United States (traditional students). Standardized tests and prior grades provide only a limited view of
one’s potential. Below is a discussion
of the eight variables recommended to be included in college readiness
assessment systems (see Exhibit 1). For a more
detailed discussion of each of these dimensions and the research supporting
their use see Sedlacek (2004a).
Positive Self-Concept
Successful students possess confidence, strong “self” feeling, strength of character, determination, and independence. A strong self-concept seems important for
students of color and women at all educational levels where it has been
investigated. The student who feels
confident of “making it” through school is more likely to survive and graduate. Although many students of color have had to
overcome incredible obstacles and setbacks even to reach the point of applying
to college, they need even greater determination to continue. Determination is needed precisely because
they may come from a different cultural background or have had different
gender-related experiences than the students and faculty members they will
encounter in college.
Seeing oneself
as part of the system and feeling good about it is an important component of
how self-concept is used here. Feeling a part of the system is generally easier
for traditional students since so much of the system is designed for them. In
summary, a positive self-concept is predictive of success in higher education
for students of color and other nontraditional students. While having a good
self-concept is important for any student, it becomes even more important for
those with nontraditional experiences because of the added complexity of
dealing with a system that was not designed for them.
Realistic Self-Appraisal
Realistic self-appraisal is the ability to assess one’s strengths and
weaknesses and allows for self-development.
Realism in self-appraisal by nontraditional persons does not connote
cultural, racial, or gender deficiency or inferiority.
For example, White students do well pursuing their own interests (internal
control) in a society designed to meet their needs, while students of color
need to also be aware of the external control on their lives that negotiating
the racism in the system requires. In summary, students of color and women of
all races who are able to make realistic assessments of their abilities,
despite obstacles to making those assessments, do better in school than those
less able to make those judgments. Realistic self-appraisal is also a predictor
of success for students with more traditional experiences.
Understands and
Knows How to Handle Racism; Navigate the System
The
successful nontraditional student is a realist based on a personal experience
with discrimination; is committed to fighting to improve the existing system;
is not submissive to existing wrongs, nor hateful of society, nor a “cop out”;
is able to handle a racist system; and asserts that the school has a role or
duty to fight racism. Institutional racism is defined as the negative
consequences that accrue to a member of a given group because of the way a
system or subsystem operates in the society (e.g., college admissions)
regardless of any other attributes of the individual. Racism can take many forms and is used here to cover all types of ‘isms” (e.g.,
sexism, ageism, “disabilityism”). While racism can be
“individual” rather than institutional, the primary concern here is for dealing
with the policies procedures and barriers, intentional or not, that interfere
with the development of people.
For traditional
students, the variable takes the form of handling the system without the
addition of racism. How we learn to handle the circumstances with which we are
confronted, tells us much about our ability and potential. Learning to make the
systems of society work for them is important for all students, but the overlay
of racism upon those systems makes it more difficult to understand and
negotiate for students of color and women. Hence it is critical to their
success in school
Long-Range Goals
Having
long-range goals will predict success in college for students. Since role models often are more difficult to
find, and the reinforcement system has been relatively random for them, many
nontraditional students have difficulty understanding the relationship between
current efforts and the ultimate practice of their professions. In other words, since students of color tend to
face a greater culture shock than White students in adjusting to a White
student-oriented campus culture, students of color are not as predictable in
their academic performance in their first year as are traditional
students. However, by the time of their
second year, students of color are about as predictable as others. Hence,
students who show evidence of having long-range goals do better in college than
those without such goals.
Strong Support Person
Students who have done well in school tend to
have a person of strong influence who provides advice to them, particularly in
times of crisis. This individual may be in the education system, in the
immediate family, but for nontraditional students it is often a relative or a
community worker. Many students of color
do not have the “props” or support to fall back upon that traditional students
typically have. Therefore, students of
color, women, gays, lesbians and bisexuals and others for whom the educational
system was not designed, do better in college if they have a history of
developing supportive relationships than those who have not had this
experience.
Leadership
Nontraditional students who are most successful in higher education have
shown an ability to organize and influence others. The key here is nontraditional evidence of
leadership among students. Application
forms and interviews typically are slanted in directions likely to yield less
useful information about the backgrounds of nontraditional students. Many White applicants know how to “play the
game” and will have “taken-up,” and then be sure to list, a wide variety of
offices held in traditional school organizations. Many students of color will not have had the
time or the inclination for such activities.
The most
promising students, however, may have shown their leadership in less typical
ways, such as working in their communities, through religious organizations, or
even as street gang leaders. It is
important to pursue the culture and gender-relevant activities of the
applicants rather than to treat them as if they come from a homogenous
environment.
Community
Having a
community with which students of color and women can identify, and from which
they can receive support is critical to their academic success. The community often is based on racial,
cultural or gender issues but it may not be for all students. Students of color, women, and other persons
with nontraditional experiences who are active in a community learn how to
handle the system, exhibit leadership and develop their self-concepts in such
groups. Therefore, those who have been involved in a community, often based on
race and/or gender, are more successful in college than those not so involved. Nontraditional Knowledge Acquired
Persons of
color are more apt to learn and develop using methods that are less traditional
and are outside the education system.
The methods may be culture or gender-related and the field itself may be
nontraditional. Assessing what a student learns outside school should be an
important part of an evaluation program for any student. Those who have
experienced discrimination within the education system may be more likely to
show evidence of their ability through nontraditional learning prior to college
than students with a more traditional experience.
Measuring Noncognitive Variables
The Noncognitive
Questionnaire (NCQ) was designed to assess the eight noncognitive
variables discussed above and shown in Exhibit 1 (Sedlacek, 1996). Several forms of the NCQ have been developed and
employed in different contexts. Test-retest reliability estimates on NCQ
scores for various samples range from .74 to .94, with a median of .85 (Sedlacek, 2004). Inter-rater reliability on
scores from the three open-ended NCQ items ranged from .73 to 1.00.
The variables shown in Exhibit 1 have
been successfully assessed in ways other than a version of the NCQ. In the
Gates Millennium Scholars program funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
a review of an entire application is scored on the noncognitive
variables, and makes up about 80% of the weight used in selection. The
application includes short- answer questions based on each of the noncognitive variables shown in Exhibit 1, a personal
statement by the applicant, letters of recommendation by the nominator and
another person, and demographic, background, and activity questions. Raters were
trained to identify and consider all this information in scoring each of the
eight noncognitive variables. The raters were educators
of color, familiar with multicultural issues in education, and in working with
the kinds of students that were applying. Inter-judge reliability was estimated
at .83 for a sample of raters in the first year (Sedlacek & Sheu, 2004, 2008). More than 11,000 Gates Scholars have
attended more than 1450 different colleges and universities with a 97%
first-year retention rate, an 87% five-year retention rate and a 78% five-year
graduation rate. More than 60% are majoring in STEM (science, technology,
engineering, mathematics) fields. Their Realistic Self Appraisal score has a
significant relationship with their first-year college GPA and their Leadership
score has a significant relationship with engaging in academic activities while
in college.
The Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation has initiated a program focusing on college
readiness (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2009). This program has the
major goal of ensuring that 80 percent of students graduating from high school
are prepared for college, with a focus on low-income and “minority” students
reaching this target. The Foundation recognizes that preparing for higher
education involves more than coursework. Having elementary and secondary
teachers work with students on behaviors beyond the typical classroom
activities is critical to the success of this initiative (Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation, 2009). The noncognitive variables
shown in Exhibit 1 provide a method for achieving those program goals. Sedlacek
(2004a) provides extensive information on the behaviors that students would
demonstrate positively or negatively on each noncognitive
variable. Teachers can work with students to encourage the positive behaviors
and reduce the negative ones (see Exhibit 2). Administrators can also evaluate
their school environments to determine how they support or hinder student
development on each of the variables.
Oregon State University (OSU) has
developed a student evaluation system based on the noncognitive
variables show in Exhibit 1. The OSU admissions application contains six short-
answer questions that cover the eight noncogitive
variables. Responses are limited to 100 words and are scored independently from
other application materials. Raters from many parts of the campus are trained
to score the six questions. Inter-judge agreement was estimated at .85. OSU
uses its system in selection, academic advising, student
services, on and off campus referrals, financial aid, and teaching. OSU noncognitive scores correlate with retention, and since
employing noncognitive variables the OSU retention
rate is higher, there is more diversity in the applicant pool and first-year
class, campus offices are working better together, applicant GPA is up,
referrals are better, and new courses and student services have begun based on
the noncognitive information.
Alternative high schools have begun
to employ the noncognitive variables in a variety of
creative ways. The Big Picture Inc. does not own schools or manage school
charters but employs the variables in helping set school goals, teacher
training, and securing funding from public and private sources. They have a
primary goal of helping students make the transition to higher education. The
student population of Big Picture schools is predominantly low income, urban,
and non-white and many students speak a first language other than English (Washor, Arnold & Mojkowski, 2008). Big Picture
schools are employing a number of methods to assess the noncognitive
variables including the basic NCQ questionnaire (Sedlacek, 2004a), behavioral
checklists, advisor rating forms, and interview techniques. Utilizing different
approaches and creating new forms that fit particular needs of schools or
programs is encouraged, and increases the probability that noncognitive
variables can be used to benefit students in a variety of contexts.
Uses of Noncognitive Variables
The noncognitive
variables can be used along with any other variables, models, or techniques
that are employed in whatever role or type of mentoring or advising or teaching
is involved. Teachers, advisors, or counselors who use the system can expect to
obtain better student outcomes in terms of grades, retention, and satisfaction,
as well as greater satisfaction themselves in employing something systematic
with demonstrated utility in an area that often produces confusion and anxiety.
First,
attributes of students could be assessed that correlate well with their
eventual success at an institution of higher education. While a school can
select a class solely based on grades and test scores that would do well
academically, those predictions could be improved by adding noncognitive
variables which would give a more complete picture of applicant abilities.
Second, the diversity of an entering class could be increased. Students of
color and those with less traditional backgrounds than typical students could
be identified and admitted with a high probability of success. This would help
discourage future challenges to the lack of diversity at a school. Third, noncognitive variables could be employed in teaching,
advising, and student services on campus. This would be a benefit to all
students; traditional and nontraditional alike. Aside from their value for
nontraditional students, noncognitive variables could
be used as the basis for retention programs and would be helpful to the
traditional students admitted with high grades and test scores who are having
difficulty on some of the noncognitive dimensions. Fourth,
noncognitive variables can provide an important
link between K-12 education and college. Too often each system works
independently at the expense of student development. If precollege
counselors and university admissions, student service, faculty, and
administrators were to work with the same system, students could be assisted in
their development and transition through the educational process.
Sedlacek, Benjamin, Schlosser, & Sheu (2007) provided examples and case studies of how noncognitive variables can be used in postmatriculation
programs in higher education. Roper & Sedlacek (1988) discussed and
evaluated a course on racism and how to develop students on noncognitive
dimensions. Also, Lechuga, Clerc
& Howell (2009) presented a system of learning activities focused on
promoting social justice that is experience-based. Fifth, noncognitive
variables can be successfully employed in graduate and professional education
in ways noted above thus extending the benefits of the system throughout an
institution (Sedlacek, 2004b). Sixth, all programs should be evaluated as to
their success. Statistical analyses and models should be employed in program
evaluation where possible. However, simpler methods such as noting the increase
in students going on to higher education since noncognitive
variables were used in advising, or counting those who graduate also can be helpful.
References
Angoff, W. H. (1971). The College Board admissions testing program. New
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
(2009). College ready.
Foundation.
Conley, D. (2005). College knowledge: What it really takes for
students to succeed and
what it takes to get them ready.
Helms, J. E. Defense of tests prevents prevents objective
considerationsof validity and
fairness. American
Psychologist 64, 283-284.
Knapp, L G., Kelly, J E., Whitmore,
R W., Wu, S, & Gallego, L M. (2002). Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2000 and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2000
(NCES 2002-212).
Lechuga, V. M., Clerc,
L. N., & Howell, A. K. (2009).
Power, privilege, and learning: Facilitating encountered situations to promote
social justice. Journal
of College Student Development. 50, 229-244.
Lemann, N. (2000). The big test: The secret history of the
American meritocracy.
Marquardt, P. D. (2009). The
effect of accountability-based testing on college bound students: A case study
of the Virginia Standards of Learning. Available at SSRN:
http://ssm.com/absrtact=1405440.
Rojstaczer, S. College grade inflation. http://www.gradeinflation.com/
Roper, L.,
& Sedlacek, W. E. (1988). Student affairs professionals in
academic roles: A course on racism. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators Journal,
26 (1), 27‑32.
Sawyer, R. (2008) Benefits of
additional coursework and improved course performance in preparing students for
college. ACT Research
Report 2008-1. ACT,
Sackett, P. R., Borneman, M.
J. & Connelly, B. S. (2009). Responses to issues raised
about validity, bias, and fairness in high-stakes testing. American Psychologist 64, 285-287.
Sedlacek, W. E. (1996). An empirical method of determining nontraditional group status. Measurement
and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 28, 200-210.
Sedlacek, W. E. (1998a, Winter). Multiple choices for standardized
tests. Priorities, 10 ,1-16.
Sedlacek, W. E. (1998b). Admissions in higher education: Measuring
cognitive and noncognitive variables. In D. J. Wilds & R.
Wilson (Eds.).
Minorities in higher education 1997-98:
Sixteenth annual status report (pp. 47-71).
Sedlacek, W. E. (2003). Alternative measures in admissions
and scholarship selection.
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development 35, 263-272.
Sedlacek,
W. E. (2004a). Beyond the big test: Noncognitive assessment in higher
education.
Sedlacek, W. E. (2004) Why we should use noncognitive
variables with graduate and
professional students. The
Advisor: The Journal of the National
Association of Advisors for the Health Professions. 24 (2), 32-39.
Sedlacek, W. E., Benjamin, E., Schlosser, L. Z., & Sheu,
H. B. (2007). Mentoring in
academia:
Considerations for diverse populations. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A
multiple perspectives approach (pp. 259-280).
Sedlacek, W. E. & Sheu, H.
B. (2004). Academic success of Gates Millennium Scholars.
Sedlacek, W. E. & Sheu, H.
B. (2008).
The academic progress of undergraduate and
graduate Gates Millennium Scholars and non-scholars by race
and gender.
Washor,
E., Arnold, K., Mojkowski, C. (2008). Taking the long view on
student success.
Woodruff, D. J., & Ziomek,
ACT Research Report 2004-04.
ACT,
Exhibit 1
Description of Noncognitive
Variables
Variable #
|
Variable Name |
|
1 |
Positive Self-Concept ·
Demonstrates confidence,
strength of character, determination, and independence. |
|
2 |
Realistic Self-Appraisal ·
Recognizes and accepts any
strengths and deficiencies, especially academic, and works hard at
self-development. Recognizes need to
broaden his/her individuality. |
|
3 |
Understands and Knows How to Handle Racism; Navigate the System ·
Exhibits a realistic view
of the system based upon personal experience of racism. Committed to improving the existing
system. Takes an assertive approach to
dealing with existing wrongs, but is not hostile to society, nor is a
"cop-out." Able to handle racist system and make system work for
him/her. |
|
4 |
Long-Range Goals ·
Able to respond to
deferred gratification, plans ahead and sets goals. |
|
5 |
Strong Support Person ·
Seeks and takes advantage
of a strong support network or has someone to turn to in a crisis or for
encouragement. |
|
6 |
Leadership ·
Demonstrates strong
leadership in any area of his/her background (e.g. church, sports,
non-educational groups, gang leader, etc.). |
|
7 |
Community ·
Participates and is
involved in his/her community. |
|
8 |
Nontraditional Knowledge Acquired ·
Acquires knowledge outside
the education system in sustained and/or culturally-related
ways. |
Exhibit 2
Positive and
Negative Noncognitive Behaviors
VARIABLES 1 THROUGH 8In the following , you will find
the definition of the variable and a list of questions to guide you in the
assessment of each variable |
Variable Item #1: POSITIVE SELF CONCEPT
This variable assesses the student’s
confidence, self-esteem, independence, and determination, all vital
components of future achievement and success.
|
||
Positive
Evidence
|
|
Negative
Evidence
|
|
Does the student feel confident of making
it through graduation? |
|
Does the student express any reason he/she might
not complete school or succeed and attain his/her goals?
|
|
Does the student make positive statements about
him/herself? |
|
Does the student express concerns that other
students are better than he/she is?
|
|
Does
the student expect to achieve his/her goals and perform well in academic and
non-academic areas? |
|
Does the student expect to have marginal grades?
|
|
Does
the student provide evidence how he/she will attain his/her goals? |
|
Does the student have trouble balancing his/her
personal and academic life?
|
|
Does the student link
his/her interests and experiences with his/her goals? |
|
Does the student appear to be avoiding new
challenges or situations?
|
Does the student assume he/she can handle new
situations or challenges?
|
|
|
Variable #2: REALISTIC SELF APPRAISAL
This variable assesses the student’s ability to recognize and accept
his/her strengths and deficiencies, especially in academics, and works hard
at self-development to broaden his/her individuality. |
||
Positive
Evidence
|
|
Negative
Evidence
|
Is
the student aware of his/her strengths and weaknesses?
|
|
Is the student unaware of how evaluations are done
in school?
|
Does
the student know what it takes to pursue a given career?
|
|
Is the student not sure about his/her own
abilities?
|
|
Is
the student realistic about his/her abilities? |
|
Is the student uncertain about how his/her peers
or superiors rate his/her performances?
|
Does
the student show an awareness of how his/her service, leadership,
extracurricular activities, or schoolwork has caused him/her to change over
time?
|
|
Does the student overreact to positive or negative
reinforcement rather than seeing it in a larger context?
|
Has
the student learned something from these structured or unstructured
activities?
|
|
Is the student unaware of how he/she is doing in
classes until grades are out?
|
|
Does
the student appreciate and understand both positive and negative feedback? |
|
Is the student unaware of positive and negative
consequences of his/her grades, actions, or skills?
|
|
Does
the student provide evidence of overcoming anger, shyness, and lack of
discipline? |
|
|
|
Does
the student face a problem, like a bad grade, with determination to do
better? |
|
|
Variable #3: UNDERSTANDS HOW TO HANDLE RACISM;
NAVIGATE THE SYSTEM
This variable assesses the student’s ability to understand the role
of the ‘system’ in life and to develop a method of assessing the
cultural/racial demands of the system and respond accordingly/assertively. |
||
Positive
Evidence
|
|
Negative
Evidence
|
|
Is
the student able to overcome challenges or obstacles he/she is confronted
with as a result of racism in a positive and effective way? |
|
Is the student unaware of how the “system” works?
|
|
Does
the student understand the role of the “system” in his/her life and how it
treats nontraditional persons? |
|
Is the student preoccupied with racism or does not
feel racism exists?
|
|
Does
the student reveal ways that he/she has learned to “deal” with the “system”
accordingly? |
|
Does the student blame others for his/her
problems?
|
|
|
|
Does the student react with the same intensity to
large or small issues concerned with race?
|
|
|
|
Is the student's method for successfully handling
racism that does not interfere with personal and academic development
nonexistent?
|
Variable #4: LONG-RANGE GOALS
This variable assesses the student’s persistence, patience, long term
planning, and willingness to defer gratification and success in college. |
||
Positive
Evidence
|
|
Negative
Evidence
|
|
Does the student reveal experience setting both
academic and personal long-term goals? |
|
Does the student lack evidence of setting and
accomplishing goals?
|
Does the student provide evidence that he/she is
planning for the future?
|
|
Is the student likely to proceed without clear
direction?
|
|
Has
the student determined a course of study and anticipate the type of career or
path he/she might or could pursue? |
|
Does the student rely on others to determine
outcomes?
|
|
Is
the student aware of realistic and intermediate steps necessary to achieve
goals? |
|
Does the student focus too much attention to the
present?
|
|
Has the student participated in activities
(volunteer work, employment, extra courses, community work) related to
his/her anticipated career goal? |
|
Is the student's plan for approaching a course,
school in general, an activity, etc. nonexistent?
|
|
|
|
If the student states his/her goals, are the goals
vague or unrealistic?
|
Variable #5: STRONG SUPPORT PERSON
This variable assesses the student’s availability of a strong support
network, help, and encouragement, and the degree to which he/she relies
solely on her/his own resources. |
||
Positive
Evidence
|
|
Negative
Evidence
|
|
Does the student have a strong support system? (This can be a personal, professional,
academic support as long as it is someone the student can turn to for advice,
consultation, assistance, encouragement etc.)
|
|
Does the student avoid turning to a support
person, mentor, or close advisors for help?
|
|
Is
the student willing to admit that he/she needs help and able to pull on other
resources, other than him/herself, to solve problems? |
|
Does the student keep his/her problems to himself?
|
|
|
|
Does the student state that he/she can handle
things on his/her own?
|
|
|
|
Does the student state that access to a previous
support person may have been reduced or eliminated?
|
|
|
|
Is the student unaware of the importance of a
support person?
|
|
Variable #6: LEADERSHIP This variable assesses the student’s skills
developed or influence exercised from his/her formal and informal leadership
roles. |
||
Positive
Evidence
|
|
Negative
Evidence
|
|
Has the student taken leadership initiative, for
example by founding clubs/organizations? What evidence is there? |
|
Is the student unable to turn to others for advice
or direction?
|
|
Does the student describe the skills s/he has
developed as a leader, skills such as assertiveness, effectiveness,
organizing, and time management? |
|
Does the student lack confidence or leadership
skills?
|
|
Has the student shown evidence of influencing others
and being a good role model? |
|
Is the student passive or does he/she lack
initiative?
|
|
Is the student comfortable providing advice and
direction to others? |
|
Is the student overly cautious?
|
|
Does the student describe a commitment to being a
role model for siblings, community members, or schoolmates? |
|
Does the student avoid controversy?
|
|
Does the student show sustained commitment to one or
two types of organizations with increasing involvement, skill development and
responsibility? |
|
|
|
Does the student take action and initiative? |
|
|
|
Variables #7: COMMUNITY This variable assesses the student’s identification
with a cultural, geographic, or racial group and his/her demonstrated
activity within that community grouping. |
||
Positive
Evidence
|
|
Negative
Evidence
|
|
Does the student show sustained commitment to a
service site or issue area? |
|
Does the student lack involvement in cultural,
racial or geographical group or community?
|
|
Does the student demonstrate a specific or long-term
commitment or relationships with a community? |
|
Is the student involved in his/her community in
name only?
|
|
Has the student accomplished specific goals in a
community setting? |
|
Does the student engage more in solitary rather
than group activities (academic or non-academic)?
|
|
Does the student’s community service relate to
career or personal goals? |
|
|
Variable #8: NONTRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED
This variable assesses the student’s experiences gained in a field
through study and experiences beyond the classroom. This variable pays
particular attention to the ways the student gains non-traditional, perhaps
culturally or racially based views of the field. |
||
Positive
Evidence
|
|
Negative
Evidence
|
|
Does the student use his/her knowledge to
teach others about the topic? |
|
Does the student lack evidence of learning from
the community or non-academic activities?
|
|
Is the student working independently in his/her field?
(Be sensitive to variations between academic fields and the experiences that
can be gained. For example, if in the
sciences, by doing independent research, or if in the arts or crafts, by
participating in competitions or compositions.) |
|
Is the student traditional in his/her approach to
learning?
|
|
|
|
Is the student unaware of his/her possibilities in
a field of interest?
|