GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT - Metropolitan Community College · General Education Assessment ... Summary of Proficiency Classifications ... There are three proficiency levels for

GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT - ETS Proficiency Profile Results -

(Formerly MAPP)

Spring 2010

Office of Research and Assessment

Metropolitan Community College

General Education Assessment

-ETS Proficiency Profile Results- Technical Report

Spring 2010

Office of Research and Assessment Metropolitan Community College

3200 Broadway Kansas City, MO 64111

Prepared by:

Melissa Giese

Preface

This report contains results obtained from the administration of the ETS Proficiency

Profile Exam [formerly called the Measures of Academic Proficiency and Progress

(MAPP)] during the Spring 2010 semester. The purpose of this assessment is to

measure student achievement in general education curriculum. The assessment was

administered to students enrolled in college level courses at the following campuses;

Blue River, Longview, Maple Woods, and Penn Valley.

Comments regarding this project should be directed to its author:

Melissa Giese

Project Coordinator (816) 604-1492

[email protected]

Metropolitan Community College Office of Research and Assessment

3200 Broadway Kansas City, MO 64111

Additional copies of this report can be obtained from our website: http://www.mcckc.edu/main.asp?P=SResearchPubReports

http://www.mcckc.edu/main.asp?P=SResearchPubReports

Table of Contents

Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................................... 1

Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 3

MCC Overall Student Mean Scores ...................................................................................................... 6

Table 1: Summary of Scaled Scores-MCC ........................................................................................... 6

Table 2: Summary of Scaled Scores-Associate’s College Comparative Data Group .................... 7

Figure 1: Scaled Total Score Distributions .......................................................................................... 8

Figure 2: Scaled SubScore Distributions ............................................................................................. 9

Figure 3: Scaled Score Distributions .................................................................................................. 10

Demographics ...................................................................................................................................... 11

Table 3: Gender ..................................................................................................................................... 11

Table 4: Age ........................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 5: Credit Hours .......................................................................................................................... 13

Table 6: Completed General Education Curriculum ...................................................................... 14

Table 7: Enrollment Status .................................................................................................................. 15

Table 8: GPA ......................................................................................................................................... 16

Table 9: Hours Working ...................................................................................................................... 17

Proficiency Classifications ................................................................................................................ 18

Table 10: Summary of Proficiency Classifications ........................................................................... 18

Figure 4: Summary of Proficiency Classifications-MCC ................................................................ 19

Table 11: Summary of Proficiency Classifications-Associate’s College Comparison Group .... 20

Blue River Student Mean Scores.......................................................................................................... 21

Table 12: Summary of Scaled Scores-Blue River .............................................................................. 21

Table 13: Summary of Scaled Scores-Associate’s College Comparative Data Group ................ 22

Figure 5: Scaled Score Distributions-Blue River .............................................................................. 23


Table 14: Summary of Proficiency Classifications-Blue River ....................................................... 24

Figure 6: Summary of Proficiency Classifications-Blue River ....................................................... 25


Longview Student Mean Scores ........................................................................................................... 27

Table 16: Summary of Scaled Scores-Longview .............................................................................. 27


Figure 7: Scaled Score Distributions-Longview ............................................................................... 29


Table 18: Summary of Proficiency Classifications-Longview ........................................................ 30

Figure 8: Summary of Proficiency Classifications- Longview ....................................................... 31


Maple Woods Student Mean Scores .................................................................................................... 33

Table 20 Summary of Scaled Scores-Maple Woods ........................................................................ 33


Figure 9: Scaled Score Distributions- Maple Woods ....................................................................... 35


Table 22: Summary of Proficiency Classifications- Maple Woods ................................................ 36

Figure 10: Summary of Proficiency Classifications- Maple Woods .............................................. 37


Penn Valley .............................................................................................................................................. 39

Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E

MCC-Research and Assessment Page 1

ETS Proficiency Profile Results Spring 2010

Summary of Findings A total of 460 MCC students took the ETS Proficiency Profile test in Spring of

2010; 171 were at Blue River, 85 were at Maple Woods, 159 were at Longview, and 45 were at Penn Valley.

A total of 445 students, or 97% of those tested, completed at least 75% of the

questions on the ETS Proficiency Profile generating valid scores. The majority of MCC students scored between 420 and 449 on a scale of 400 to

500. Few scores occurred in the lowest and highest categories (400-409 and 490-500).

Fifty-one percent (51%) of MCC students taking the ETS Proficiency Profile

scored above the Associates College Comparative Data Group mean (440.4). The MCC total student mean (441.8) was comparable to the Associates College

Comparative Data Group mean (440.4). Overall MCC student subscore means were comparable to the Comparative Data

Group with the exception of Humanities (115.0) and Critical Thinking (111.6). For the Humanities and Critical Thinking subscores, the MCC student mean was slightly higher.

Overall, MCC males (445.1) scored higher than females (439.6). Males (114.9) also

had a slightly higher Mathematics subscore than females (111.4). Thirty to thirty-nine year old MCC students had the highest mean score as well

as the majority of subscore means. MCC students who earned 30 to 60 credit hours had the highest total mean score

(442.8). As MCC students completed a higher percentage of general education or core

curriculum requirements their total mean scores increased. The majority of subscore means followed a similar pattern.

MCC students who had completed 100% of their general education or core curriculum requirements had a total mean score close to 6 points higher than those students who had only completed 25% of their requirements.


Full-time student mean scores (442.1) were slightly higher than part-time students (440.7).

MCC Student mean scores increased with GPA. Students who earned a 3.50 to

4.00 GPA had a significantly higher total mean score than those with lower GPA’s. Students who earned a 3.50 to 4.00 GPA had a total mean score (452.5) close to 16 points higher than those students who had a GPA of 2.50 to 2.99. Subscores for this group of students were also higher than those with lower GPA’s.

MCC student scores did not appear to be adversely influenced by working

longer hours.

Proficiency classifications (proficient, marginal or not proficient) measure how well students have mastered each subject level. There are three proficiency levels for each subject: Writing, Mathematics, and for the combined set of skills for Reading and Critical Thinking. The percentage of students’ testing proficient, at each level are discussed below and compared to the ETS Proficiency Profile Comparative Data Group.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of MCC students were proficient in Reading, level 1 and

36% were proficient for Reading, level 2. The MCC proficiency percentages were slightly higher than the Comparative Data Group (Reading, level 1, 61% and Reading, level 2, 28%).

Three percent (3%) of MCC students were proficient in Critical Thinking.

Although this number appears low it is equal to the percentage of proficiency in Critical Thinking for the national Comparison Group (3%).

Fifty-four percent (54%) of MCC students were proficient in Writing, level 1, 11%

were proficient in Writing, level 2 and 3% were proficient in Writing, level 3. MCC student percentages were less proficient across all three levels of Writing, than the Comparative Data Group (59% level 1, 13% level 2, 6% level 3).

Forty-eight percent (48%) of MCC students were proficient in Mathematics, level

1, 23% were proficient in Mathematics, level 2 and 7% were proficient in Mathematics, level 3. MCC students had slightly higher percentages of proficiency in all levels of Mathematics than the comparison group (46% level 1, 20% level 2, 4% level 3).

Student mean scores, subscores, score distributions, and percentages of proficiency for classifications are analyzed by campus in the following sections.


METHODOLOGY Purpose The purpose of this study was to measure MCC student learning following completion of general education courses during the spring 2010 semester. Students were assessed at the following campuses: Blue River, Longview, Maple Woods and Penn Valley. Instrument The information regarding the ETS Proficiency Profile in this section was obtained from the MAPP User’s Guide (July 1, 2007, www.ets.org). The ETS Proficiency Profile is an assessment that measures proficiency in critical thinking and college-level reading, writing, and mathematics skills. There are 2 forms of the multiple choice ETS Proficiency Profile: Standard and Abbreviated. The Abbreviated form was selected for MCC due to time constraints. The abbreviated form is 40 minutes and can be completed in a class period. The abbreviated form only provides information about groups of 50 or more students however. The abbreviated form has 36 questions:

Nine questions measuring critical thinking skills

Nine questions measuring reading skills

Nine questions measuring writing skills

Nine questions measuring mathematics skills On each Abbreviated form, the reading questions and the critical thinking questions represent all three of the academic contexts-humanities, social sciences and natural sciences-but the number of questions from each academic context in each sub form can differ. The table below illustrates this structure:

Critical Thinking

Reading Writing Mathematics

Humanities 3 questions 2, 3, or 4 questions 9 questions 9 questions

Social Sciences 3 questions 2, 3 or 4 questions

Natural Sciences 3 questions 2, 3 or 4 questions

http://www.ets.org/


Scores Two kinds of scores are reported on the ETS Proficiency Profile: scaled scores and proficiency classifications. Scaled Scores

Three types of scaled scores are reported: total score, four skills subscores, and context based subscores.

The total score is based on all of the questions and is reported on a scale of 400-500.

The four skills subscores are reported on scales of 100-130. Each skills subscore refers to a particular skill dimension: Critical Thinking, College Level Reading, College Level Writing, or Mathematics.

Three context based subscores are reported on scales of 100 to 130. Each of these subscores measure reading and critical thinking skills in a particular academic context: Humanities, Social Sciences or Natural Sciences.

Proficiency Classifications

Proficiency classifications (proficient, marginal or not proficient) measure how well students have mastered each level. There are three proficiency levels for each: Writing, Mathematics, and for the combined set of skills for Reading and Critical Thinking. The percentage of students’ testing proficient, marginal, or not proficient at each level are reported. For a detailed list of what the expectations are for a student to be categorized as proficient for each dimension by level please see Appendix A.


Sample Selection The Office of Research and Assessment compiled a list of college level courses by campus for selection. These selected courses had a high concentration of students enrolled who had completed 35 or more credit hours. These lists were then emailed to the Dean of Instruction for each campus. Each Dean selected the courses they wanted included in the sample and communicated with the respective class instructors and our office. The majority of courses selected were 200 level college courses. Testing Center The Testing Center Coordinators and staff were oriented on ETS Proficiency Profile testing and administration procedures. Classroom instructors made appointments with testing Center Coordinators scheduling a class administration of the ETS Proficiency Profile. All ETS Proficiency Profile testing was done on-line in the testing centers. The majority of students were tested with their class. Accommodations were also made so some students could be tested individually when necessary. Student scores and data were collected on-line by ETS. Results Student scores and data were downloaded from the ETS web site. Student scores were analyzed and results were compared to the ETS Proficiency Profile comparative data group (see below). Please see the results in the following pages. Comparative Data

ETS publishes an ETS Proficiency Profile Comparative Data Guide (www.ets.org) which lists the performance of groups of students taking the ETS Proficiency Profile test. These groups of students are defined by the Carnegie classification of their colleges. The comparative data group used for MCC comparisons is the Associate’s College-All Students group. This group is comprised of 58,033 students tested between January 2003 and July 2007 at Community Colleges and other Two-year institutions.

http://www.ets.org/


Overall Student Mean Scores Table 1 shows the ETS Proficiency Profile total mean scores and subscores

reported for MCC students. MCC students had an overall total mean score of 441.8. Overall MCC students (441.8) scored closely to the comparison group (440.4, see Table 2 and Figure 1). MCC student subscores ranged from 111.6 to 117.9. The majority of MCC student subscore means were comparable to the comparison group on all Skills subscores (See Figure 2 for illustration). The majority of MCC scores fall around the 50th percentile.

Table 1 ETS Proficiency Profile

Summary of Scaled Scores

Metropolitan Community College

Number of students tested: 460 Number of students included in these statistics: 445

Possible Range

Mean Score

Standard Deviation

25th Percentile

50th Percentile

75th Percentile

Total Score 400 to 500 441.8 17.6 430 441 453

Skills Subscores:

Critical Thinking 100 to 130 111.6 5.8 107 112 116

Reading 100 to 130 117.9 6.6 113 119 124

Writing 100 to 130 113.2 4.5 109 114 117

Mathematics 100 to 130 112.7 6.0 108 112 117

Context-Based Subscores:

Humanities 100 to 130 115.0 5.8 110 115 119

Social Sciences 100 to 130 113.3 5.9 108 113 117

Natural Sciences 100 to 130 115.0 5.5 110 114 118

Source: ETS


Table 2 shows the scores for the Associates College Comparative Data Group from ETS. This table provides the average scores reported for students taking the ETS Proficiency Profile at 79 institutions.



Associates College Comparative Data Group

Number of students tested: 58,033 Number of students included in these statistics: 52,569

Possible Range

Mean Score

Standard Deviation

25th Percentile

50th Percentile

75th Percentile

Total Score 400 to 500 440.4 18.1 427 438 452

Skills Subscores:


Reading 100 to 130 117.6 6.9 112 117 123

Writing 100 to 130 113.6 4.9 111 114 118

Mathematics 100 to 130 112.4 5.6 108 111 115


Humanities 100 to 130 113.9 6.2 109 114 118



Source: ETS Proficiency Profile -“Comparative Data Guide, All Students-Associates Colleges”, www.ets.org.


Figure 1 illustrates the total mean score for MCC and the total mean score for the Associates College Comparison Group. From this illustration you can see that MCC’s total mean score was just slightly higher (by about 1 point) than the Associates College Comparison group.

Figure 1

Scaled Total Score Distributions MCC and Associates College Comparison of Mean Total Scores


Figure 2 illustrates the variance of mean scores for the subscore categories between MCC and the Associates College Comparison Group. This illustration further demonstrates how closely the subscore means mirror each other.

Figure 2

Scaled SubScore Distributions MCC and Associates College Comparison of Mean SubScores


Figure 3 shows the distribution of total scores for the MCC students taking the ETS Proficiency Profile. This chart shows that the majority of scores fell between 420 and 459. Few scores occurred at the lowest and highest ends of the spectrum. See Appendix B for the distribution of scores for each skill area.

Figure 3

Scaled Score Distributions

Number of students tested: 460

Number of students included in these statistics: 445

Source: ETS Proficiency Profile


Demographics This section shows MCC student mean scores reported by demographic categories. The following demographics are provided: Gender, Age, Credit Hours Earned, General Education/Core Curriculum Hours Completed, Enrollment Status, GPA, and Hours Working. Ethnicity is not reported as the majority of ethnic categories had insufficient data as a result of having less than 50 students per response option. Gender Table 3 shows the ETS Proficiency Profile scores earned by MCC male and female test takers. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of students tested were Male and 62% were Female. This is representative of our overall MCC gender demographic. Males had a mean score of 445.1 and females had a mean score of 439.6. Males (445.1) scored higher overall than females (439.6). Subscores were basically comparable between males and females except in Mathematics. For mathematics, males (114.9) scored higher than females (111.4).


Demographic Analysis Report Gender


Number of students excluded : 15

Number Total Score

Critical Thinking Reading Writing Mathematics Humanities

Social Sciences

Natural Sciences

Total Group 445

441.8 111.6 117.9 113.2 112.7 115.0 113.3 115.0 [17.6] [5.8] [6.6] [4.5] [6.0] [5.8] [5.9] [5.5]

Male 161

445.1 112.1 118.5 113.2 114.9 115.4 113.6 115.5 [19.0] [5.7] [6.9] [4.8] [6.6] [5.9] [6.2] [5.8]

Female 268

439.6 111.4 117.5 113.1 111.4 114.8 113.0 114.6 [16.4] [5.7] [6.4] [4.4] [5.3] [5.8] [5.8] [5.3] The mean score is presented on the top of each cell, with the standard deviation below in brackets. Because the "gender" field is optional, the sum total of the male and female counts may not sum to the total group.

Source: ETS.org


Age Table 4 shows mean ETS Proficiency Profile scores earned by age category. The majority of students tested were 29 and younger. Students under age 20 had a mean score of 442.1 and students ages 20 to 29 scored a 440.9. Students in the 30 to 39 age group had the highest mean score of 445.9.


Demographic Analysis Report Age


Number of students excluded: 15

Number Total Score


Social Sciences

Natural Sciences

Total Group 445

441.8 111.6 117.9 113.2 112.7 115.0 113.3 115.0

[17.6] [5.8] [6.6] [4.5] [6.0] [5.8] [5.9] [5.5]

<20 90

442.1 110.9 117.4 113.7 113.8 114.0 112.9 114.7

[16.6] [5.5] [6.0] [4.5] [6.5] [5.2] [5.3] [5.7]

20 - 29 268

440.9 111.2 117.8 113 112.5 115.0 112.9 114.7

[16.9] [5.6] [6.6] [4.3] [5.8] [5.9] [5.8] [5.5]

30 - 39 51

445.9 113.2 119.6 113.8 112.8 116.2 114.8 116.3

[19.8] [6.3] [6.9] [4.9] [6.0] [6.3] [7.0] [5.0]

40 - 49 23 Insufficient Data



>=70 0 Insufficient Data

*Insufficient data due to fewer than 50 respondents. The mean score is presented on the top of each cell, with the standard deviation below in brackets.



Earned Credit Hours Table 5 shows the ETS Proficiency Profile mean scores earned by MCC test takers by the number of credit hours they have successfully completed. Students with less than 30 hours had a mean score of 439.3 and students who had between 30 and 60 hours scored a 442.8. Students in the 61 to 90 credit hour group had a mean score of 440.7. Students with 30-60 credit hours earned the highest total mean score (442.8). The majority of subscores for each skill were relatively close across all levels of completed credit hours.


Demographic Analysis Report Credit Hours



Number Total Score


Social Sciences

Natural Sciences

Total Group 445

441.8 111.6 117.9 113.2 112.7 115.0 113.3 115.0

[17.6] [5.8] [6.6] [4.5] [6.0] [5.8] [5.9] [5.5] None, entering students 9 Insufficient Data

Fewer than 30 semester hours 96

439.3 110.6 117.4 112.6 112.3 114.5 113.0 113.9

[18.4] [5.7] [6.6] [5.0] [6.2] [5.5] [6.4] [5.6]

30 - 60 semester hours 239

442.8 111.9 118.1 113.3 113.1 115.0 113.4 115.4

[17.0] [5.7] [6.4] [4.3] [5.9] [5.9] [5.8] [5.4]

61 - 90 semester hours 77

440.7 111.5 118.0 113.3 111.7 115.7 112.6 114.7

[17.2] [5.5] [6.6] [4.4] [5.8] [5.9] [5.5] [5.4]

More than 90 semester hours 24 Insufficient Data *Insufficient data due to fewer than 50 respondents.

The mean score is presented on the top of each cell, with the standard deviation below in brackets. Source: ETS Proficiency Profile


General Education/Core Curriculum Requirements Completed Table 6 shows the ETS Proficiency Profile mean scores earned by MCC test takers by the percentage of credit hours they have completed of general education or core curriculum. This table shows that as students completed a higher percentage of general education or core curriculums their total scores increased. Students who had completed 100% of their general education or core curriculum requirements had a mean score almost 6 points higher than those who had completed only 25%. Students who had completed about 25% of general education requirements had a mean score of 439.6. Students completing about half scored a 440.5. Students who had completed about 75% of general education requirements had a mean score of 442.0. Students completing 100% had a mean score of 445.3. Students who had completed 100% of their requirements had the highest mean subscores.


Demographic Analysis Report General Education Curriculum Completed



Number Total Score


Social Sciences

Natural Sciences

Total Group 445

441.8 111.6 117.9 113.2 112.7 115.0 113.3 115.0

[17.6] [5.8] [6.6] [4.5] [6.0] [5.8] [5.9] [5.5]

None 16 Insufficient Data

About 25% 70

439.6 111.1 117.0 112.9 112.3 114.1 113.4 113.9

[16.6] [5.1] [6.2] [4.9] [6.1] [5.2] [6.1] [5.1]

About half 63

440.5 110.3 117.8 112.7 113.1 114.4 112.7 114.3

[18.6] [6.4] [6.7] [4.9] [5.2] [6.1] [6.3] [6.0]

About 75% 207

442.0 112.1 117.8 113.1 112.9 115.1 113.1 115.2

[17.1] [5.9] [6.6] [4.1] [6.4] [5.9] [5.7] [5.5]

100% 89

445.3 112.4 119.4 114.2 112.7 115.9 114.2 116.0

[18.2] [5.4] [6.4] [4.5] [5.8] [5.9] [5.9] [5.5]




Enrollment Status Table 7 shows MCC student ETS Proficiency Profile mean scores by their enrollment status. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of students tested were full-time and 23% were part-time. Full-time students had a mean score of 442.1 and Part-time students had a mean score of 440.7. Full-time students (442.1) mean scores were slightly higher than Part-time students (440.7). There was no discernable pattern between enrollment status and the subscores obtained.


Demographic Analysis Report Enrollment Status



Number Total Score


Social Sciences

Natural Sciences

Total Group 445

441.8 111.6 117.9 113.2 112.7 115.0 113.3 115.0

[17.6] [5.8] [6.6] [4.5] [6.00] [5.8] [5.9] [5.5]

Full Time 342

442.1 111.7 117.9 113.3 113.1 115.0 113.2 115.0

[17.3] [5.7] [6.5] [4.5] [6.1] [5.94] [5.8] [5.4]

Part Time 103

440.7 111.6 118.1 112.9 111.5 115.2 113.4 114.8

[18.4] [5.9] [6.7] [4.8] [5.4] [5.5] [6.2] [5.9]

The mean score is presented on the top of each cell, with the standard deviation below in brackets.



GPA Table 8 shows MCC student mean scores by earned GPA. Sixty-one percent (61%) of students tested earned between a 3.00 and 4.0 GPA. Students mean scores and subscores increased with GPA. Students who earned between a 3.50 and 4.00 GPA had a mean score of 452.3 and students who earned between a 3.00 and a 3.50 GPA had a mean score of 441.8. Students who earned between a 2.50 and 2.99 GPA had the lowest mean score of 437.0. Students who earned a 3.50 to a 4.0 GPA scored significantly better overall on the ETS Proficiency Profile (almost 11 points higher than students with 3.0 to 3.49 GPA’s and almost 16 points higher than students with GPA’s of 2.50 to 2.99).


Demographic Analysis Report GPA



Number Total Score


Social Sciences

Natural Sciences

Total Group 445

441.8 111.6 117.9 113.2 112.7 115.0 113.3 115.0

[17.6] [5.8] [6.6] [4.5] [6.0] [5.8] [5.9] [5.5]

None, entering student 10 Insufficient Data

3.50 - 4.00 110

452.5 114.2 121.2 115.4 115.3 117.4 115.9 117.3

[16.8] [5.9] [5.5] [4.2] [6.2] [5.8] [5.5] [5.0]

3.00 - 3.49 159

441.8 111.4 117.9 113.1 112.8 115.0 113.1 114.8

[17.4] [5.7] [6.4] [4.6] [5.7] [5.7] [5.8] [6.0]

2.50 - 2.99 127

437.0 110.5 116.6 112.4 111.5 113.8 112.3 114.1

[15.1] [5.5] [6.5] [3.9] [5.6] [5.5] [6.0] [4.8]

2.00 - 2.49 32 Insufficient Data

1.00 - 1.99 7 Insufficient Data

Less than 1.00 0 Insufficient Data




Hours Spent Working Table 9 shows MCC student mean scores by the amount of hours they spent working. Students working zero hours had a mean score of 441.1 and students working between 1 and 15 hours had a mean score of 439.9. Students working between 16 and 30 hours had a mean score of 443.0 and students working more than 30 hours had a mean score of 441.8. It appears that working longer hours does not adversely influence student scores.


Demographic Analysis Report Hours Working



Number Total Score


Social Sciences

Natural Sciences

Total Group 445

441.8 111.6 117.9 113.2 112.7 115.0 113.3 115.0

[17.6] [5.8] [6.6] [4.5] [6.0] [5.8] [5.9] [5.5]

0 93

441.1 111.6 118.4 112.8 112.0 115.6 113.4 114.8

[16.8] [5.6] [6.3] [4.2] [6.0] [6.0] [5.5] [4.8]

1-15 67

439.9 111.5 117.4 112.4 112.5 114.4 113.8 114.3

[18.4] [5.4] [6.6] [4.7] [6.7] [6.0] [6.0] [5.1]

16 - 30 159

443.0 111.7 118.0 113.8 112.9 114.9 113.1 115.6

[17.1] [5.7] [6.5] [4.4] [5.7] [5.6] [5.9] [5.8]

More than 30 126

441.8 111.7 117.7 113.1 113.1 115.2 113.2 114.6

[18.2] [6.2] [6.8] [4.8] [5.9] [5.9] [6.2] [5.7]

The mean score is presented on the top of each cell, with the standard deviation below in brackets.



Proficiency Classifications Table 13 shows the percentage of students who scored in the Proficient, Marginal or Not Proficient categories by Skill Dimension. See Table 14 for comparison percentages for the Associate’s Colleges Comparison Group. Sixty-four percent (64%) of MCC students were proficient at Reading, level 1 and 36% were proficient at Reading, level 2. MCC students scored slightly higher than the Associates College comparison group for Reading level 1 (61%) and higher for Reading level 2 (28%). MCC student percentages of proficiency were comparable to the comparison group (3%) in Critical Thinking.


Summary of Proficiency Classifications MCC



Skill Dimension Proficiency Classification

Proficient Marginal Not Proficient

Reading, Level 1 64% 21% 15%


Critical Thinking 3% 18% 78%

Writing, Level 1 54% 36% 10%



Mathematics, Level 1 48% 28% 24%


Mathematics, Level 3 7% 13% 80% The skills measured by the ETS Proficiency Profile are grouped into proficiency levels - three

proficiency levels for writing, three for mathematics, and three for the combined set of skills involved in reading and critical thinking. The table and graph show the number and percentage of students who are proficient, marginal, and not proficient at each proficiency level in reading and critical thinking, writing, and mathematics. A student classified as marginal is one whose test results do not provide enough evidence to classify the student either as proficient or as not proficient. See the Methodology-Instrument section of this report for more information about these classifications, including a list of the specific skills associated with each proficiency level in each skill area. Source: ETS Proficiency Profile


Fifty-four percent (54%) of MCC students were proficient in Writing, level 1, 11% were proficient in Writing, level 2, and 3% were proficient in Writing, level 3. MCC students had a lower percentage (54%) of proficiency in Writing, level 1 and Writing level 3 (3%) than the comparison group (59% and 6% respectively).

Forty-eight percent (48%) of MCC students were proficient in Mathematics, level 1, 23% were proficient in Mathematics, level 2, and 7% were proficient in Mathematics, level 3. MCC students had slightly higher percentages of proficiency in all levels of mathematics than the comparison group (46% level 1, 20% level 2, 4% level3).

Figure 4 illustrates each Skill Dimension and the percentage of students who scored within the 3 proficiency categories; Proficient, Marginal and Not Proficient.

Figure 4

Summary of Proficiency Classifications

MCC



Table 11 shows the Proficiency classifications for the Associates College Comparison Group reported by ETS. This table provides the percentages reported for students taking the ETS Proficiency Profile at 79 institutions.


Summary of Proficiency Classifications Associates College Comparison Group













The skills measured by the ETS Proficiency Profile are grouped into proficiency levels - three proficiency levels for writing, three for mathematics, and three for the combined set of skills involved in reading and critical thinking. The table and graph show the number and percentage of students who are proficient, marginal, and not proficient at each proficiency level in reading and critical thinking, writing, and mathematics. A student classified as marginal is one whose test results do not provide enough evidence to classify the student either as proficient or as not proficient. See the Methodology-Instrument section of this report for more information about these classifications, including a list of the specific skills associated with each proficiency level in each skill area. Source: ETS-“Comparative Data Guide, All Students-Associates Colleges”, www.ets.org


Blue River - Student Mean Scores Table 12 shows the ETS Proficiency Profile mean total scores and subscores

reported for Blue River students. Blue River students had an overall total mean score of 438.7. Overall Blue River students (438.7) scored slightly lower than the comparison group (440.4, see Table 13). The majority of Blue River students scored comparably to the comparison group on all Skills subscores. The majority of Blue River scores fall around the 50th percentile.



Blue River


Possible Range

Mean Score

Standard Deviation

25th Percentile

50th Percentile

75th Percentile

Total Score 400 to 500 438.7 17.7 427 436 447

Skills Subscores:


Reading 100 to 130 116.9 6.7 112 117 122

Writing 100 to 130 112.7 4.7 109 113 117

Mathematics 100 to 130 111.7 5.4 107 111 115


Humanities 100 to 130 114.6 6.0 110 113 119







Summary of Scaled Scores Associates College Comparative Data Group


Possible Range

Mean Score

Standard Deviation

25th Percentile

50th Percentile

75th Percentile

Total Score 400 to 500 440.4 18.1 427 438 452

Skills Subscores:


Reading 100 to 130 117.6 6.9 112 117 123

Writing 100 to 130 113.6 4.9 111 114 118

Mathematics 100 to 130 112.4 5.6 108 111 115


Humanities 100 to 130 113.9 6.2 109 114 118



Source: ETS-“Comparative Data Guide, All Students-Associates Colleges”, www.ets.org.


Figure 5 shows the distribution of scores for the Blue River students taking the ETS Proficiency Profile. This chart shows that the majority of scores fell between 420 and 449. Only a few scores were obtained in the lowest and highest ends of the spectrum. See Appendix C for the distribution of scores for each skill area.

Figure 5 Scaled Score Distributions

Blue River



Source: ETS

Demographics No student scores are reported for Blue River by demographic categories. The majority of demographic categories are not reported as they had insufficient data as a result of having less than 50 students per response option.


Proficiency Classifications Table 14 shows the percentage of Blue River students who scored in the Proficient, Marginal or Not Proficient categories by Skill Dimension. See Table 15 for comparison percentages for the Associate’s Colleges Comparison Group. Fifty-six percent (56%) of Blue River students were proficient at Reading, level 1 and 31% were proficient at Reading, level 2. Blue River students scored lower than the Associates College comparison group for Reading level 1 (61%) and slightly higher for Reading level 2 (28%). Blue River student percentages of proficiency were comparable in Critical Thinking (5%) to the comparison group (3%).


Summary of Proficiency Classifications Blue River














The skills measured by the ETS Proficiency Profile are grouped into proficiency levels - three proficiency levels for writing, three for mathematics, and three for the combined set of skills involved in reading and critical thinking. The table and graph show the number and percentage of students who are proficient, marginal, and not proficient at each proficiency level in reading and critical thinking, writing, and mathematics. A student classified as marginal is one whose test results do not provide enough evidence to classify the student either as proficient or as not proficient. See the Methodology-Instrument section of this report for more information about these classifications, including a list of the specific skills associated with each proficiency level in each skill area. Source: ETS


Fifty-three percent (53%) of Blue River students were proficient in Writing, level 1, 10% were proficient in Writing, level 2, and 5% were proficient in Writing, level 3. Blue River students had a lower percentage (53%) of proficiency in Writing, level 1 than the comparison group (59%) and a slightly lower percentage of proficiency for Writing, level 2 (10%) than the comparison group (13%).

Forty-two percent (42%) of Blue River students were proficient in Mathematics, level 1, 18% were proficient in Mathematics, level 2, and 2% were proficient in Mathematics, level 3. Blue River students had a slightly lower percentage of proficiency in level 1 of Mathematics than the comparison group (46%). Figure 6 illustrates each Skill Dimension and the percentage of Blue River students who scored within the 3 proficiency categories; Proficient, Marginal and Not Proficient.

Figure 6


Blue River



Table 15 shows the Proficiency classifications for the Associates College Comparison Group reported by ETS.















The skills measured by the ETS Proficiency Profile are grouped into proficiency levels - three proficiency levels for writing, three for mathematics, and three for the combined set of skills involved in reading and critical thinking. The table and graph show the number and percentage of students who are proficient, marginal, and not proficient at each proficiency level in reading and critical thinking, writing, and mathematics. A student classified as marginal is one whose test results do not provide enough evidence to classify the student either as proficient or as not proficient. See the Methodology-Instrument section of this report for more information about these classifications, including a list of the specific skills associated with each proficiency level in each skill area.



Longview - Student Mean Scores Table 16 shows the ETS Proficiency Profile total mean scores and subscores

reported for Longview students. Longview students had an overall total mean score of 445.8. Overall Longview students (445.8) scored higher than the comparison group (440.4, see Table 17). The Longview total mean score falls between the 50th and 75th percentile of the Comparison group. Longview student scores were slightly higher for Critical Thinking and Mathematics.



Longview


Possible Range

Mean Score

Standard Deviation

25th Percentile

50th Percentile

75th Percentile

Total Score 400 to 500 445.8 17.6 432 444 457

Skills Subscores:


Reading 100 to 130 118.7 6.5 114 120 124

Writing 100 to 130 114.0 4.4 111 114 117

Mathematics 100 to 130 114.3 6.3 110 114 119


Humanities 100 to 130 115.1 5.8 110 113 120



Source: ETS







Possible Range

Mean Score

Standard Deviation

25th Percentile

50th Percentile

75th Percentile

Total Score 400 to 500 440.4 18.1 427 438 452

Skills Subscores:


Reading 100 to 130 117.6 6.9 112 117 123

Writing 100 to 130 113.6 4.9 111 114 118

Mathematics 100 to 130 112.4 5.6 108 111 115


Humanities 100 to 130 113.9 6.2 109 114 118





Figure 7 shows the distribution of scores for the Longview students taking the ETS Proficiency Profile. This chart shows that the majority of scores fell between 420 and 459. No scores occurred in the lowest category and only a few scores were obtained in the highest end of the spectrum. See Appendix D for the distribution of scores for each skill area.


Longview



Source: ETS

Demographics No student scores are reported for Longview by demographic categories. The majority of demographic categories are not reported as they had insufficient data as a result of having less than 50 students per response option.


Proficiency Classifications Table 18 shows the percentage of Longview students who scored in the Proficient, Marginal or Not Proficient categories by Skill Dimension. See Table 19 for comparison percentages for the Associate’s Colleges Comparison Group. Seventy percent (70%) of Longview students were proficient at Reading, level 1 and 39% were proficient at Reading, level 2. Longview students scored higher than the Associates College comparison group for Reading level 1 (61%) and higher for Reading level 2 (28%). Longview student percentages of proficiency were similar in Critical Thinking (4%) to the comparison group (3%).


Summary of Proficiency Classifications Longview














The skills measured by the ETS Proficiency Profile are grouped into proficiency levels - three proficiency levels for writing, three for mathematics, and three for the combined set of skills involved in reading and critical thinking. The table and graph show the number and percentage of students who are proficient, marginal, and not proficient at each proficiency level in reading and critical thinking, writing, and mathematics. A student classified as marginal is one whose test results do not provide enough evidence to classify the student either as proficient or as not proficient. See the Methodology-Instrument section of this report for more information about these classifications, including a list of the specific skills associated with each proficiency level in each skill area. Source: ETS


Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Longview students were proficient in Writing, level 1, 13% were proficient in Writing, level 2, and 4% were proficient in Writing, level 3. Longview students scored comparably across Writing levels to the comparison group (59% Level 1, 13% Level 2, 6% Level 3). Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Longview students were proficient in Mathematics, level 1, 34% were proficient in Mathematics, level 2, and 12% were proficient in Mathematics, level 3. Longview students had significantly higher percentages of proficiency in all levels of Mathematics than the comparison group (46% Level 1, 20% Level 2, 4% Level 3). Figure 8 illustrates each Skill Dimension and the percentage of Longview students who scored within the 3 proficiency categories; Proficient, Marginal and Not Proficient.

Figure 8


Longview

Source: ETS




















Maple Woods - Student Mean Scores Table 20 shows the ETS Proficiency Profile total mean scores and subscores

reported for Maple Woods students. Maple Woods students had an overall total mean score of 442.7. Overall Maple Woods students (442.7) scored slightly higher than the comparison group (440.4, see Table 21). The Maple Woods Total mean score falls between the 50th and 75th percentile of the Comparison group. Maple Woods student subscores were higher for Critical Thinking and Humanities.



Maple Woods


Possible Range

Mean Score

Standard Deviation

25th Percentile

50th Percentile

75th Percentile

Total Score 400 to 500 442.7 14.2 434 441 451

Skills Subscores:


Reading 100 to 130 118.6 5.9 115 119 124

Writing 100 to 130 113.2 3.8 111 113 117

Mathematics 100 to 130 112.6 5.7 108 111 117


Humanities 100 to 130 115.9 5.2 110 115 120



Source: ETS







Possible Range

Mean Score

Standard Deviation

25th Percentile

50th Percentile

75th Percentile

Total Score 400 to 500 440.4 18.1 427 438 452

Skills Subscores:


Reading 100 to 130 117.6 6.9 112 117 123

Writing 100 to 130 113.6 4.9 111 114 118

Mathematics 100 to 130 112.4 5.6 108 111 115


Humanities 100 to 130 113.9 6.2 109 114 118





Figure 9 shows the distribution of scores for the Maple Woods students taking the ETS Proficiency Profile. This chart shows that the majority of scores fell between 430 and 459. Only a few scores occurred in the lowest category and no scores were obtained in the highest end of the spectrum. See Appendix E for the distribution of scores for each skill area.


Maple Woods



Source: ETS

Demographics No student scores are reported for Maple Woods by demographic categories. The majority of demographic categories are not reported as they had insufficient data as a result of having less than 50 students per response option.


Proficiency Classifications Table 22 shows the percentage of Maple Woods students who scored in the Proficient, Marginal or Not Proficient categories by Skill Dimension. See Table 23 for comparison percentages for the Associate’s Colleges Comparison Group. Seventy-three percent (73%) of Maple Woods students were proficient at Reading, level 1 and 40% were proficient at Reading, level 2. Maple Woods students scored significantly higher than the Associates College comparison group for Reading level 1 (61%) and for Reading level 2 (28%). Maple Woods student percentages of proficiency were lower in Critical Thinking (0%) than the comparison group (3%).


Summary of Proficiency Classifications Maple Woods













The skills measured by the ETS Proficiency Profile are grouped into proficiency levels - three proficiency levels for writing, three for mathematics, and three for the combined set of skills involved in reading and critical thinking. The table and graph show the number and percentage of students who are proficient, marginal, and not proficient at each proficiency level in reading and critical thinking, writing, and mathematics. A student classified as marginal is one whose test results do not provide enough evidence to classify the student either as proficient or as not proficient. See the Methodology-Instrument section of this report for more information about these classifications, including a list of the specific skills associated with each proficiency level in each skill area. Source: ETS-“Comparative Data Guide, All Students-Associates Colleges”, www.ets.org.


Fifty-three percent (53%) of Maple Woods students were proficient in Writing, level 1, 10% were proficient in Writing, level 2, and 4% were proficient in Writing, level 3. Maple Woods students had lower percentages of proficiency in Writing across all Writing levels than the comparison group (59% Level 1, 13% Level 2, 6% Level 3). Forty-eight percent (48%) of Maple Woods students were proficient in Mathematics, level 1, 19% were proficient in Mathematics, level 2, and 6% were proficient in Mathematics, level 3. Maple Woods students had a slightly higher percentage of proficiency in level 1 of Mathematics (48%) and level 3 of Mathematics (6%) than the comparison groups (46% and 4% respectively). Level 2 of mathematics for Maple Woods students were comparable to the comparison group. Figure 10 illustrates each Skill Dimension and the percentage of students who scored within the 3 proficiency categories; Proficient, Marginal and Not Proficient.

Figure 10


Maple Woods

Source: ETS




















Penn Valley-Missing Data There is no individual campus data reported for the students taking the ETS Proficiency Profile at Penn Valley. ETS requires a minimum of 50 valid student responses to provide this data. Penn Valley had 45 students participate in the ETS Proficiency Profile during the Spring 2010 semester. Penn Valley student scores are however included in the overall MCC ETS Proficiency Profile data provided in the Overall MCC section of this report.

Appendix A Dimension Characteristics

Reading/Critical Thinking Level I

Students who are proficient can:

recognize factual material explicitly presented in a reading passage

understand the meaning of particular words or phrases in the context of a reading passage

Level II


synthesize material from different sections of a passage

recognize valid inferences derived from material in the passage

identify accurate summaries of a passage or of significant sections of the passage

understand and interpret figurative language

discern the main idea, purpose or focus of a passage or a significant portion of the passage

Level III


evaluate competing causal explanations

evaluate hypotheses for consistency with known facts

determine the relevance of information for evaluating an argument or conclusion

determine whether an artistic interpretation is supported by evidence contained in a work

recognize the salient features or themes in a work of art

evaluate the appropriateness of procedures for investigating a question of causation

evaluate data for consistency with known facts, hypotheses or methods

recognize flaws and inconsistencies in an argument

Writing Skills Level I


recognize agreement among basic grammatical elements (e.g., nouns, verbs, pronouns and conjunctions)

recognize appropriate transition words

recognize incorrect word choice

order sentences in a paragraph

order elements in an outline

Level II


incorporate new material into a passage

recognize agreement among basic grammatical elements (e.g., nouns, verbs, pronouns and conjunctions) when these elements are complicated by intervening words or phrases

combine simple clauses into single, more complex combinations

recast existing sentences into new syntactic combinations

Level III


discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate use of parallelism

discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate use of idiomatic language

recognize redundancy

discriminate between correct and incorrect constructions

recognize the most effective revision of a sentence

Mathematics Level I


solve word problems that would most likely be solved by arithmetic and do not involve conversion of units or proportionality. These problems can be multi-step if the steps are repeated rather than embedded.

solve problems involving the informal properties of numbers and operations, often involving the Number Line, including positive and negative numbers, whole numbers and fractions (including conversions of common fractions to percent, such as converting "1/4" to 25%)

solve problems requiring a general understanding of square roots and the squares of numbers

solve a simple equation or substitute numbers into an algebraic expression

find information from a graph. This task may involve finding a specified piece of information in a graph that also contains other information.

Level II


solve arithmetic problems with some complications, such as complex wording, maximizing or minimizing, and embedded ratios. These problems include algebra problems that can be solved by arithmetic (the answer choices are numeric).

simplify algebraic expressions, perform basic translations, and draw conclusions from algebraic equations and inequalities. These tasks are more complicated than solving a simple equation, though they may be approached arithmetically by substituting numbers.

interpret a trend represented in a graph, or choose a graph that reflects a trend

solve problems involving sets; problems have numeric answer choices

Level III


solve word problems that would be unlikely to be solved by arithmetic; the answer choices are either algebraic expressions or numbers that do not lend themselves to back-solving

solve problems involving difficult arithmetic concepts such as exponents and roots other than squares and square roots and percent of increase or decrease

generalize about numbers, (e.g., identify the values of (x) for which an expression increases as (x) increases)

solve problems requiring an understanding of the properties of integers, rational numbers, etc.

interpret a graph in which the trends are to be expressed algebraically or one of the following is involved: exponents and roots other than squares and square roots, percent of increase or decrease

solve problems requiring insight or logical reasoning

Appendix B MCC District

ETS Proficiency Profile

Scaled Score Distributions Skills Subscores

MCC




Scaled Score Distributions Academic Area Subscores

MCC



Appendix C Blue River Data



Blue River





Blue River



Appendix D Longview Data



Longview





Longview



Appendix E Maple Woods Data


Scaled Score Distributions Skills Subscores Maple Woods





Maple Woods



Documents

GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT - Metropolitan Community College · General Education Assessment ... Summary of Proficiency Classifications ... There are three proficiency levels for