Are college students learning enough?
A controversial new book, "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses," written by Richard Arum of New York University and Josipa Roksa of the University of Virginia, suggests that colleges and universities are not doing enough to help students learn the skills needed for the 21st century.
The research study included more than 2,300 undergraduates from 24 colleges and universities. It found that:
Some scholars have a fundamental problem with the CLA. They say that critical-thinking skills are deeply entwined with discipline-specific knowledge, so it makes no sense to use the same test to measure the writing and reasoning abilities of students in different majors. Arum and Roksa disagree: "[T]he students who had the strongest CLA-score gains during college in the Academically Adrift study were actually those who majored in science and mathematics, departments where they are not necessarily required to write many essays."
Their major concern is: "not just the levels of student performance but that students are reporting that they make such meager investments in studying, and that they have such meager demands placed on them in their courses in terms of reading and writing."
The research study included more than 2,300 undergraduates from 24 colleges and universities. It found that:
- 45% of students showed no significant improvement in the key measures of critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing by the end of their sophomore years.
- 36% showed no significant improvement by the end of their senior years.
- 50% of students did not take a single course requiring 20 pages of writing during their prior semester.
- 33% of students did not take any courses requiring 40 pages or more of reading per week.
- 35% of students studied five hours per week or less.
- 17% of students didn't meet with a faculty member outside of class during the first year of college.
- 9% of students never talked to a professor outside of class.
Some scholars have a fundamental problem with the CLA. They say that critical-thinking skills are deeply entwined with discipline-specific knowledge, so it makes no sense to use the same test to measure the writing and reasoning abilities of students in different majors. Arum and Roksa disagree: "[T]he students who had the strongest CLA-score gains during college in the Academically Adrift study were actually those who majored in science and mathematics, departments where they are not necessarily required to write many essays."
Their major concern is: "not just the levels of student performance but that students are reporting that they make such meager investments in studying, and that they have such meager demands placed on them in their courses in terms of reading and writing."
posted by Gayle Stein at
10:06 AM
7 Comments:
I can see where learning might be lacking in the curriculum such as writing lengthy papers and 40 pages or more of reading but I think it comes to how students view academics. My stepfather, who went to school between 1964-1968 received more than 100 pages per class and he was taking 15 credits per semester. I might read less per class but I write much shorter papers (6-7 pgs)for a total 7 papers throughout the semester. I think the important thing is to practice close reading not just skimming as one would be pressed to do with longer reading and to write concisely and clearly. I think it's shocking that 45% (less than half) of students do not improve in critical thinking and writing skills. Many other critics bemoan the state of students' math abilities in the U.S. so I am surprised to find that students are not more proficient in critical reasoning and writing.
Finally, I agree with the statement that students must put in effort to really benefit from what's being taught at college. If students major in a subject because it is easy or they want to make a lot of money when they graduate, they will not be motivated to work hard in their course of study. The instructor is paid to teach and guide students but they have to be just as active in learning and continue to practice skills they learned in college. Students also have to evaluate themselves throughout the course and ask themselves: Is it better to sloppily put together a 20 page paper or organize a more restrained paper at 10 pages? Curricula should be questioned just as much as the workload to see if students actually get as much as they put in reading, studying, writing and revising.
What? No information about how many lines of programming they wrote in the last semester!?! What a biased study!
(half a :-)
Seriously, studies like this show serious ignorance of the non-humanities, non-social science fields like mine (computer science). The depth / complexity of a math proof or computer algorithm probably does not correlate well with the number of pages it takes, for instance.
I think students end up doing what they need to do. They may do just enough to get the A. It sounds cynical to believe the worst in them, but I would think it's the structure of the system that gives them this freedom. Why wouldn't they take advantage?
However, I agree that many companies are not satisfied when they hire fresh, just graduate students. Companies look for smart and cheap employees and a lot of times college students don't meet the expectations in quality of work. I think a huge problem is the business world being so different from the college world.
Yes, I think a big part of the unpreparedness problem is the disconnect between the academic and professional worlds. I think it is very possible to pay attention, do all your work, and graduate with a significant theoretical body of knowledge but have not iota of a clue as to how it relates to what an employer might actually ask you to do. My undergraduate degree was in history, and I know which Latin American countries we have occupied and when - but I dont know how that will make me a better curator of a museum when it comes to any display other than that pertaining to the topic. Meanwhile nobody taught me how to handle delicate documents or write grant proposals for exhibit financing. Go figure.
I seriously think that before anybody puts pen to paper on a curriculum departments need to toss out all their personal interests and invite a professional hiring manager in to tell them what new hires need to know - then make double sure it is taught. The for-profit college model is taking off because this 'what you need to know on the job' focus is there.
A controversial new book, "Academically Adrift: INCREASED Learning on College Campuses," written by Richard Arum of New York University and Josipa Roksa of the University of Virginia, suggests that colleges and universities are not doing enough to help students learn the skills needed for the 21st century.
The research study included more than 2,300 undergraduates from 24 colleges and universities. It found that:
55% of students SHOWED significant improvement in the key measures of critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing by the end of their sophomore years.
64% SHOWED significant improvement by the end of their senior years.
50% of students TOOK A course requiring 20 pages of writing during their prior semester.
67% of students TOOK courses requiring 40 pages or more of reading per week.
65% of students studied five hours per week or MORE.
83% of students MEET with a faculty member outside of class during the first year of college.
91% of students TALKED to a professor outside of class.
.....CLEARLY DIFFERENCE OF PRESENTATION MAKES THE STUDY SWAY THE VIEWERS TO BELIEVE ONE THING OR THE OTHER.... A SLIGHT CHANGE IN THE PRESENTATION OF STUDY MAKES YOU,THE VIEWER, BELIEVE EXACT OPPOSITE AS THE ORIGINAL PRINT....THIS STUDY HAS NO REAL EVIDENCE THAT DECREASED LEARNING IS OCCURRING IN SCHOOL INSTEAD WITH THE INFO PRESENTED CORRECTLY, OR CORRECT ANALYSIS OF THE STUDY PRESENTED,ONE COULD EASILY SEE THAT EDUCATION IS FULFILLING ITS DESIRED RESULTS ...AS CLOSE TO 70% OF STUDENTS IMPROVE IN EACH FIELD
The best papers are thorough, but succinct; longer essays do not correlate with improved critical thinking. Regarding proofs, mathematicians view the most eloquent and the shortest proofs as superior to the longer ones. Thus, the criterion used to measure critical thinking are poorly chosen and inaccurate.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home