Examination of Alternative Models of Students’ Assessment of Their College

Differences Between Hard and Soft Sciences

Bibliographic Data

ID19378292
AuthorsYoram Neumann, Edith Finaly‐Neumann
Year1989
Volume14
Issue1
Pages11-19
Publication date1989-03-01
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueAssessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0260-2938 • E-ISSN: 1469-297X
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/0260293890140102
OpenAlexW2089751475
LanguageEN
References cited10

This study examines the relationship between the discriminable components of quality of learning experiences (that is, resources, content, learning flexibility, student‐faculty contact, and involvement) and students’ summative assessment of their college. The relative explanatory powers of three alternative combinatory models — the compensatory (linear‐additive), conjunctive, and disjunctive — are tested for. undergraduate students from hard and soft sciences. The conjunctive model provides the maximal predictability for hard sciences whereas all three models have the same explanatory powers in soft sciences. In addition, the five quality of learning experience components explain a higher portion of the variation of assessment in hard sciences than in soft sciences. Finally, the two dominant predictors of assessment in hard sciences are flexibility and involvement while the best determinants of assessment in soft sciences are flexibility and student‐faculty contact. The implications of these findings are discussed

Epistemology · Formative assessment · Hard and soft science · Mathematics education · Predictability · Social science · Sociology · Statistics · Summative assessment · Evaluation of Teaching Practices · Higher Education Research Studies · Mathematics · Online and Blended Learning · Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub