GRADUATE ETS TESTING REPORT

GRADUATE ETS®

TESTING REPORT Class of 2019

DivisionofStudentAffairs

CSAO:CristinaGuerraRomero

DoralCollege

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................. 1

OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................. 2

About the Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 2

Test Administration ................................................................................................................................ 2

Sample Size ............................................................................................................................................. 2

Use of Results .......................................................................................................................................... 2

Comparative Data ................................................................................................................................... 2

Class of 2019 Results & Comparative Data .............................................................................. 3

Total Scores ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Scaled Scores for Skills and Context-Based Subscores ........................................................................ 3

Proficiency Classifications ...................................................................................................................... 5

Essay Scores ............................................................................................................................................ 7

Summary of Results ................................................................................................................ 8

APPENDIX A—ETS® Proficiency Profile Proficiency Levels ....................................................... 10

Reading and Critical Thinking ............................................................................................................ 10

Level 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 10

Level 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 10

Level 3/Critical Thinking ..................................................................................................................... 10

Writing ............................................................................................................................................... 10

Level 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 10

Level 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 10

Level 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 11

Mathematics ...................................................................................................................................... 11

Level 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 11

Level 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 11

Level 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 11

2

OVERVIEW

ThefollowingreportsummarizestheresultsoftheETS®ProficiencyProfile(AbbreviatedForm)fortheDoralCollegegraduatingClassof2019,hereinafterreferredtoas“thecohort.”Asofthe2014-2015academic

year,allgraduatesoftheCollege’sAssociateinArtsprogramarerequiredtocompletethisassessmentprior

tograduation.However,resultsdonotaffecteligibilityforgraduation,andindividualstudentscoresarekept

confidentialandnotreleasedinthisreport.

TheETS®ProficiencyProfileassessesallfourgeneraleducationskills—criticalthinking,reading,writing

andmathematics.ItisoneofthreeinstrumentsapprovedforuseinmeetingVoluntarySystemofAccountability(VSA)requirements,andprovidestheCollegewithabasisforcomparisonusingcomparative

dataonover500institutionsand550,000students.

About the Assessment

DoralCollegeutilizestheETS®ProficiencyProfile(AbbreviatedForm),ashortenedversionofthe

standardassessment.TheETS®ProficiencyProfile(AbbreviatedForm)consistsof36multiple-choice

questions,asfollows:

• ninequestionstestingcriticalthinkingskills

• ninequestionstestingreadingskills

• ninequestionstestingwritingskills

• ninequestionstestingmathematicsskills

TheoptionalETSessayportionisalsoadministeredtoallstudentsinthecohort.Totaltestingtimeis

approximatelyonehourand30minutes.

Test Administration

PersonnelfromtheCollege’sDivisionofStudentAffairsadministeredtheETS®ProficiencyProfiletoall49

studentsontracktograduateduringthespring2019semester.Theassessmentwascompletedoncomputers

andproctoredinpersonbystafftrainedintestsecurityandadministration.

Sample Size

Thisyear’scohortexceedstherecommendedsamplesizeofatleast30studentswhenusingtheETS®

ProficiencyProfile.Itisalsoimportanttonotethatinstitutionsoftentestonlyasampleofthetargetedpopulation(e.g.,10%ofseniors),whileDC’sresultsarereflectiveoftheentiretargetedpopulation(e.g.100%

of2019graduates).

Use of Results

TheCollege’sDivisionofStudentAffairspreparesthisreportfordisseminationtotheCollegecommunity.

Academicpersonnel,ledbytheChiefAcademicOfficer,reviewtheresultsinrelationtotheacademicprogram

andmakeadjustmentsasappropriate.Forexample,lowerthanaveragescoresinacertaingeneraleducationskillwouldresultinareviewofrelatedcoursessothatimprovementsmaybemade.

Comparative Data

DoralCollegeevaluatesitsstudents’resultsusingthecomparativedatareleasedbyETS®forthispurpose.

Aspectsoftheassessmentwillbeaddressedseparatelyasfollow:

3

• totalscores

• scaledscoresforthefourskillssubscores(criticalthinking,reading,writing,andmathematics)and

threecontext-basedsubscores(humanities,socialsciences,naturalsciences)

• proficiencyclassificationsfortheskillareasofreadingandcriticalthinking,writing,and

mathematics

• essayscores

AvailablecomparativedatareflectstheresultsofproctoredexamsfromJuly1,2014andJune30,2019.All

data,withtheexceptionofessayscores,isbrokendownbyinstitutiontypeandclasslevel.DoralCollegeisa

two-yearprivatecollegethatoffersanAssociateinArtsdegree.Therefore,thebestpointofcomparisonfor

thecohortisSophomoresatAssociateDegreePrograms/Colleges.However,inordertomakebroadercomparisonsregardingthecohort’sperformance,additionaldatasetswerealsoincluded.

Thefollowingcomparativedatasetsforproctoredexaminationswereusedandarereferencedherein:

• Sophomore(30-60semesterhourscompleted)atAssociateDegreePrograms/Colleges(includes

77institutionsand32,584students)

• Sophomore(30-60semesterhourscompleted)atBachelor’sColleges(includes44institutionsand

4,903students)

• Allstudentgradesatallinstitutiontypes(includes323institutionsand369,745students)

AllcomparativedatareferencedwasexcerptedfromtheETS®websiteandcanbelocatedat

https://www.ets.org/proficiencyprofile/scores/compare_data/.

CLASS OF 2019 RESULTS & COMPARATIVE DATA

Total Scores

TotalscoresfortheETS®ProficiencyProfilerangebetween400-500.Themeanscoreforthecohortwas

461.74.Allgraduatesscoredabovea423.

Furthermore,themeanscoreofthecohortexceededthemeanscoreofallcomparativedatasetsused.Table1belowprovidesmoreinformation.

Table1:TotalScoreMeanComparison

Data Set Mean Score for set DC 2019 Mean Score Percent Below DC Mean*

Sophomores at AA 437.0

461.74

100

Sophomores at Bachelors 436.2 100

All student grades, all types 440.1 98

*ThisisthepercentageofinstitutionswhosemeanscoreisstatisticallybelowtherangeinwhichDoralCollege

cohort’smeanscorefalls.

Scaled Scores for Skills and Context-Based Subscores

Inadditiontothetotalscorereferencedabove,theETS®ProficiencyProfileprovidesascaledscorefortheareasofcriticalthinking,reading,writing,math,humanities,socialsciences,andnaturalsciences.Scoresfor

eachofthesecategoriesrangefrom100to130.However,itshouldbenotedthatthedifferentsubscoresare

notcomparabletooneanother(i.e.a125inreadingisnotcomparabletoa125inmathematics).

4

Table2andFigure1belowprovidethemeansubscoresfortheDCClassof2019,aswellasinformationon

howtheycomparetothemeansubscoresforthecomparativedatasets.

Table2:SubscoresMeanComparison

Data Set Mean Score for set DC 2019 Mean Score Percent Below DC Mean*

CRITICAL THINKING


115.2

100



READING


122.6

100



WRITING


118.3

100



MATHEMATICS


118.3

100



HUMANITIES


118.8

100



SOCIAL SCIENCES


116.7

100



NATURAL SCIENCES


118.0

100



Figure1:SubscoresMeanComparisonGraph

5

Proficiency Classifications

Inadditiontoscaledscores,theETS®ProficiencyProfileprovidesproficiencyclassifications(proficient,marginal,ornotproficient)todescribehowwellstudentshavemasteredeachlevelofproficiencyinthe

followingareas:

• Reading(Levels1and2)andCriticalThinking(Level3)

• Writing(Levels1,2,and3)

• Mathematics(Levels1,2,and3)

AdditionalinformationonproficiencylevelsisattachedasAppendixA.

AsDoralCollegeutilizestheabbreviatedformoftheETS®ProficiencyProfile,studentsansweronlythree

questionsateachproficiencylevelinwritingandmathematicsandonlyfourorfiveateachlevelinreading.

Thus,theproficiencyclassificationsassignedareestimatesofwherestudentswouldfallhadtheytakentheStandardFormoftheexam.Theseresultswerenotusedtomakedecisionsaboutindividualstudents.

Table3andFigure2illustratethecohort’sproficiencyclassificationsbyskillarea.

Table3:ProficiencyClassificationEstimates—DCClassof2019

SKILL DIMENSION PROFICIENCY CLASSIFICATION

Proficient Marginal Not Proficient

Reading, Level 1 88% 2% 2%

Reading, Level 2 69% 20% 20%

Critical Thinking 14% 37% 37%

Writing, Level 1 86% 14% 0%



Mathematics, Level 1 86% 10% 4%



11

5.2

12

2.6

11

8.3

11

8.3

11

8.8

11

6.7

11

8.0

10

9.8

11

5.8

11

2.6

11

1.8

11

2.8

11

1.5 11

3.7

10

9.7

11

5.4

11

2.4

11

1.7

11

2.9

11

1.2 11

3.4

11

0.4

11

6.6

11

3.3

11

2.7

11

3.4

11

2.1 11

4.3

C R I T I C A L

T H I N K I N G

R E A D I N G W R I T I N G M A T H H U M A N I T I E S S O C I A L

S C I E N C E S

N A T U R A L

S C I E N C E S

DC Class of 2019 Sophomores at AA Sophomores at Bachelors All students, all institution types

6

Figure2:ProficiencyClassificationEstimatesGraph—DCClassof2019

Furthermore,Figures3-5providegraphicalrepresentationswhichillustratethecohort’sresultsineachskill

area,andhowtheycomparetotheresultsofeachrespectivecomparativedataset.

Figure3:ProficiencyClassificationComparison—ReadingandCriticalThinking

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Readin

g, Le

vel 1

Readin

g, Le

vel 2

Critic

al T

hinki

ng

Writ

ing,

Leve

l 1

Writ

ing,

Leve

l 2

Writ

ing,

Leve

l 3

Mat

hemat

ics,

Leve

l 1

Mat

hemat

ics,

Leve

l 2

Mat

hemat

ics,

Leve

l 3

Proficiency Classification Proficient Proficiency Classification Marginal

Proficiency Classification Not Proficient

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Proficient Marginal Not

Proficient


Proficient


Proficient

Reading, Level 1 Reading, Level 2 Critical Thinking, Level 3

DC 2019 Sophomores at AA Sophomores at Bachelors All students, all types

7

Figure4:ProficiencyClassificationComparison—Writing

Figure5:ProficiencyClassificationComparison—Mathematics

Essay Scores

Allstudentsinthecohortwererequiredtotaketheoptionalessayportion.Scoresfortheessayrangefrom

one(1)tosix(6).AvailablecomparativedatareflectstheresultsofproctoredessaysadministeredfromJuly2013throughJune2018,butismorelimitedinscopeanddoesnotbreakdownscoresbyinstitutiontypeand

classlevel.Atotalof4,712studentsareincludedinthisset.

ThemeanscorefortheDoralCollegeclassof201was4.6.Allgraduatesscoredatleastafour(4).Table4,

below,comparesthedistributionofindividualstudentscoresinthecohorttothedistributionofindividual

studentscoresinthecomparativedataset.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Proficient


Proficient


Proficient

Writing, Level 1 Writing, Level 2 Writing, Level 3


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Proficient


Proficient


Proficient

Mathematics, Level 1 Mathematics, Level 2 Mathematics, Level 3


8

Table4:ComparisonofIndividualEssayScoreDistribution

Score

Percent at each score

level

Percent at each score

level

Percent with a score

of at least…

Percent with a

score of at least…

(DC 2019) (Comparative Data) (DC 2019) (Comparative

Data)

6 2.07% 2.30% 1.50% 2.30%

5 63.27% 24.50% 65.30% 26.70%

4 34.69% 40.70% 100.00% 67.40%

3 0.00% 21.80% 100.00% 89.20%

2 0.00% 7.60% 100.00% 96.80%

1 0% 3.20% 100.00% 100.00%

unscored 0% Not listed N/A N/A

Table5,below,providesthemeanscoreforthecohort,aswellasthemeanscoreofallinstitutionalmeansin

thecomparativedataset.

Table5:ComparisonofInstitutionalMeanEssayScores

DATA SET MEAN SCORE

DC 2019 4.6

Comparative data set—Institutional Mean 3.8

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Asillustratedherein,thedatashowstheDCcohortoutperformedallcomparativedatagroupsinalltested

areas.Thisincludesthe“Allstudents,allinstitutiontypes”dataset,whichincludesjuniorsandseniorsat

Bachelorsprograms/degrees.

Wherescaledscoresareconcerned,thecohort’smeanscorewassignificantlyhigherthanthemeanscoresof

allcomparativesetsused,bothinthetotalandsubscorecategories.Forexample,thecohort’stotalmean

scorewasstatisticallyhigherthanthetotalmeanscoreof100%oftheinstitutionsincludedinthe

sophomoresatAssociatesDegreePrograms/Collegesdataset.Furthermore,thecohort’smeanscorein

eachsubscorearea(criticalthinking,reading,writing,mathematics,humanities,socialsciences,andnatural

sciences)wasalsostatisticallyhigherthanthetotalmeanscoreof100%oftheinstitutionsincludedin

thesophomoresatAssociatesDegreePrograms/Collegesdataset,andbetween100-98%,

respectively,ofthesophomoresatBachelor’sCollegesdataset.

Additionally,whencomparingproficiencyclassificationsinthethreeareasofreadingandcriticalthinking,

writing,andmathematics,itbecomesclearthatagreaterpercentageofstudentsinthecohortscoredas

proficientineachlevelofeachareawhencomparedtoanyandallcomparativegroupsreferenced.Similarly,

alesserpercentageofstudentsinthecohortscoredasnotproficientineachlevelofeachareawhen

comparedtoanyandallcomparativegroupsreferenced.Forexample,88%ofthecohortscoredas

“proficient”onReading,level1,comparedto58%ofsophomoresatassociatedegreeprograms/institutions,

9

49%ofsophomoresatBachelor’scolleges,and60%ofallstudentsatallinstitutiontypes.Similarly,27%of

thecohortscoredas“proficient”onWriting,level3,comparedtoonly3%ofsophomoresatassociatedegree

programs/institutionsandallstudentsatallinstitutiontypes,4%ofsophomoresatBachelor’scolleges,and

8%ofallstudentsatallinstitutiontypes.

TheseresultsstronglyindicatethemembersoftheDoralCollegeClassof2019arebetterpreparedingeneral

educationskillsthanaretheircounterpartsatbothtwoandfour-yearinstitutions.Thisisatrendthathas

continuedconsistentlysincetheCollegebeganusingtheETStoevaluateitsgraduates’proficiency,asthe

Collegehasroutinelyoutscoredthecomparativedatasets,scoringhigherthanbetween100-93%ofall

groups(comparisonofmeantotalscoresandsubscores)overtheyears.

10

APPENDIX A—ETS® PROFICIENCY PROFILE PROFICIENCY LEVELS1

READING AND CRITICAL THINKING

LEVEL 1

TobeconsideredproficientatLevel1,studentsshouldbeableto:

§ recognizefactualmaterialexplicitlypresentedinareadingpassage

§ understandthemeaningofparticularwordsorphrasesinthecontextofareadingpassage

LEVEL 2


§ synthesizematerialfromdifferentsectionsofapassage

§ recognizevalidinferencesderivedfrommaterialinthepassage

§ identifyaccuratesummariesofapassageorofsignificantsectionsofthepassage

§ understandandinterpretfigurativelanguage

§ discernthemainidea,purposeorfocusofapassageorasignificantportionofthepassage

LEVEL 3/CRITICAL THINKING


§ evaluatecompetingcausalexplanations

§ evaluatehypothesesforconsistencywithknownfacts

§ determinetherelevanceofinformationforevaluatinganargumentorconclusion§ determinewhetheranartisticinterpretationissupportedbyevidencecontainedinawork

§ evaluatetheappropriatenessofproceduresforinvestigatingaquestionofcausation

§ evaluatedataforconsistencywithknownfacts,hypothesesormethods

§ recognizeflawsandinconsistenciesinanargument

WRITING

LEVEL 1


§ recognizeagreementamongbasicgrammaticalelements(e.g.,nouns,verbs,pronounsand

conjunctions)

§ recognizeappropriatetransitionwords§ recognizeincorrectwordchoice

§ ordersentencesinaparagraph

§ orderelementsinanoutline

LEVEL 2


§ incorporatenewmaterialintoapassage

1 The information above is released by ETS® for client use and can be located at:

https://www.ets.org/proficiencyprofile/scores/proficiency_classifications/levels

11

§ recognizeagreementamongbasicgrammaticalelements(e.g.,nouns,verbs,pronounsand

conjunctions)whentheseelementsarecomplicatedbyinterveningwordsorphrases

§ combinesimpleclausesintosingle,morecomplexcombinations§ recastexistingsentencesintonewsyntacticcombinations

LEVEL 3


§ discriminatebetweenappropriateandinappropriateuseofparallelism§ discriminatebetweenappropriateandinappropriateuseofidiomaticlanguage

§ recognizeredundancy

§ discriminatebetweencorrectandincorrectconstructions

§ recognizethemosteffectiverevisionofasentence

MATHEMATICS

LEVEL 1


§ solvewordproblemsthatwouldmostlikelybesolvedbyarithmeticanddonotinvolveconversionof

unitsorproportionality.Theseproblemscanbemultistepifthestepsarerepeatedratherthanembedded.

§ solveproblemsinvolvingtheinformalpropertiesofnumbersandoperations,ofteninvolvingthe

NumberLine,includingpositiveandnegativenumbers,wholenumbersandfractions(including

conversionsofcommonfractionstopercent,suchasconverting"1/4"to25percent).

§ solveproblemsrequiringageneralunderstandingofsquarerootsandthesquaresofnumbers.

§ solveasimpleequationorsubstitutenumbersintoanalgebraicexpression.

§ findinformationfromagraph.Thistaskmayinvolvefindingaspecifiedpieceofinformationinagraphthatalsocontainsotherinformation.

LEVEL 2


§ solvearithmeticproblemswithsomecomplications,suchascomplexwording,maximizingorminimizingandembeddedratios.Theseproblemsincludealgebraproblemsthatcanbesolvedby

arithmetic(theanswerchoicesarenumeric).

§ simplifyalgebraicexpressions,performbasictranslations,anddrawconclusionsfromalgebraic

equationsandinequalities.Thesetasksaremorecomplicatedthansolvingasimpleequation,though

theymaybeapproachedarithmeticallybysubstitutingnumbers.

§ interpretatrendrepresentedinagraph,orchooseagraphthatreflectsatrend.§ solveproblemsinvolvingsets;problemshavenumericanswerchoices.

LEVEL 3


§ solvewordproblemsthatwouldbeunlikelytobesolvedbyarithmetic;theanswerchoicesareeitheralgebraicexpressionsornumbersthatdonotlendthemselvestoback-solving

§ solveproblemsinvolvingdifficultarithmeticconcepts,suchasexponentsandrootsotherthan

squaresandsquareroots,andpercentofincreaseordecrease

§ generalizeaboutnumbers(e.g.,identifythevaluesof(x)forwhichanexpressionincreasesas(x)

increases)

§ solveproblemsrequiringanunderstandingofthepropertiesofintegers,rationalnumbers,etc.

§ interpretagraphinwhichthetrendsaretobeexpressedalgebraicallyoroneofthefollowingisinvolved:exponentsandrootsotherthansquaresandsquareroots,percentofincreaseordecrease

§ solveproblemsrequiringinsightorlogicalreasoning

12

Documents

GRADUATE ETS TESTING REPORT