REPORT ON ETS EPP TEST OF GENERAL EDUCATION SKILLS …...education skills and knowledge. The short form of the EPP is a 40-minute multiple choice test that includes questions about

REPORT ON ETS EPP TEST OF GENERAL

EDUCATION SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE

Fall 2013 – Spring 2014

Prepared by The Center for Teaching & Assessment of Learning

Kevin R. Guidry, Ph.D.

Senior Research Analyst

Kathleen Langan Pusecker, M.S.

Director of Educational Assessment

Prepared: August 2014

Executive Summary

At the direction of the Office of the Provost, the Center for Teaching & Assessment of

Learning administered the short form of the ETS Educational Proficiency Profile (EPP) to first-

year and senior students at UD in the 2013-2014 academic year to examine their general

education skills and knowledge. The short form of the EPP is a 40-minute multiple choice test

that includes questions about critical thinking, reading, writing, and mathematics. Of the 657

UD students who have taken the EPP, 307 students who completed more than 75% the test in

2010 and 329 completed more than 75% in 2013-2014. Overall, we have some confidence that

these two samples are relatively representative of the populations from which they were drawn

based on their demographics, particularly their gender and race/ethnicity.

The results of these tests are generally positive. In general, UD students who took the

EPP performed better than students at other institutions who have taken the EPP. More

importantly, UD students made statistically significant gains in every area tested by the EPP

when comparing average results from first-year students to senior students in the same cohort

indicating that students are learning general education skills and knowledge during their time at

UD. EPP results also confirm that students who began in 2013 were more academically

qualified than those who began in 2010. Test results also indicate that the UD undergraduate

education has remained broadly consistent during the past four years as both groups of senior

students performed similarly despite performing differently as first-year students.

Based on these test results, our experience administering the EPP for a second time,

experience with general education at the University of Delaware, and our broader knowledge of

U.S. higher education, we recommend that UD:

1. Adopts a cross-college, cross-discipline method of assessing general education skills

and knowledge that is more actionable. EPP scores are not actionable given their

vagueness and opacity. Smaller, more targeted assessments grounded in coursework

or disciplinary work may be more appropriate and useful. Similarly, electronic

portfolios or expanded transcripts where students are required to upload work that

they feel indicates mastery of the general education goals to be assessed by UD

faculty (e.g., CTAL Assessment Scholars using AAC&U rubrics) may be more

viable, actionable, and accepted by UD constituents.

2. Places a greater emphasis on assessing samples of students that reflect UD priorities

and needs. For example, if we are particularly interested in large-scale, longitudinal

work then we should ensure we are assessing representative samples that are ideally

the same ones at different points in time e.g., assess the same group of students as

first-year students and as seniors. This could also include targeted assessments of

specific groups of students e.g., quantitative reasoning skills of non-STEM students.

This work would be greatly enabled if UD were to adopt a regular, scheduled time for

the structured collection of assessment data and reflection on how it can improve

university practices like the “Assessment Day” held twice annually at James Madison

University.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 2

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ 4

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 6

Study Sample and Representativeness ................................................................................ 6

Test Results ......................................................................................................................... 9

Between-university comparisons. ................................................................................. 10

All four-year institutions. .......................................................................................... 11

Public research universities. ...................................................................................... 15

Within-university comparisons. .................................................................................... 19

First-year-2010-cohort-to-senior-2013-cohort .......................................................... 20

First-year-cohort-to-first-year-cohort. ...................................................................... 22

Senior-cohort-to-senior-cohort ................................................................................. 23

Implications....................................................................................................................... 24

Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 25

Appendix A : ETS Proficiency Profile Levels .................................................................. 28

Reading and Critical Thinking ...................................................................................... 28

Level 1. ..................................................................................................................... 28

Level 2. ..................................................................................................................... 28

Level 3. ..................................................................................................................... 28

Writing .......................................................................................................................... 29

Level 1. ..................................................................................................................... 29

Level 2. ..................................................................................................................... 29

Level 3. ..................................................................................................................... 29

Mathematics .................................................................................................................. 30

Level 1. ..................................................................................................................... 30

Level 2. ..................................................................................................................... 30

Level 3. ..................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix B : All EPP-Participating 4-Year Institutions .................................................. 32

Introduction

At the direction of the Office of the Provost, the Center for Teaching & Assessment of

Learning administered the short form of the ETS Educational Proficiency Profile (EPP) to first-

year and senior students at UD in the 2013-2014 academic year to examine their general

education skills and knowledge. The short form of the EPP is a 40-minute multiple choice test

that includes questions about critical thinking, reading, writing, and mathematics. We also

administered the EPP in 2010 so we are able to compare responses from first-year students and

senior students in the same cohort.

Study Sample and Representativeness

In total, 657 UD students have completed the EPP. Once we remove the students who

completed less than 75% of the test questions1 we have 307 students who completed the test in

2010 and 329 who completed it in 2013-2014 as summarized in Table 1. Overall, we have some

confidence that these two samples are relatively representative of the populations from which

they were drawn based on their demographics, particularly their gender and race/ethnicity.

Table 1: UD EPP Sample

2010 2013-2014

First-year students Entering first-year students (0 credits) 149 127

First-year students with more than zero but

less than 30 credits

36 59

Senior students 92 136

Other 30 7

Total 307 329

1 This removes only 21 (3%) of the students from the analysis, 10 (3%) from 2010 and 11 (3%) from 2013-

2014.

In terms of gender and race/ethnicity, the students who have taken the EPP are roughly

comparable to the broader UD student population. Table 2 displays the gender of UD students

and EPP test-takers with Table 3 displaying their race/ethnicity. The percentages of students in

each of these categories are comparable and were improved in the 2013-2014 administration.

Some of the differences in the race/ethnicity numbers, particularly the overrepresentation of

Asian students, are likely due to differences in how these data are collected for the EPP and for

other UD purposes especially since the EPP does not distinguish between U.S. citizens and

international students.

Table 2: Gender of UD Undergraduate Population and EPP Sample

2011 2014

n Percentage n Percentage

Female UD 9,067 57% 9,081 58%

EPP 190 62% 197 60%

Male UD 6,820 43% 6,676 42%

EPP 106 35% 131 40%

Unknown UD n/a n/a n/a n/a

EPP 11 4% 1 < 1%

Table 3: Race/ethnicity of UD Undergraduate Population and EPP Sample

2011 2014

n Percentage n Percentage

White UD 12,322 78% 12,789 76%

EPP 240 78% 253 77%

African-American UD 797 5% 834 5%

EPP 6 2% 14 4%

Hispanic UD 891 6% 1,144 7%

EPP 11 3% 19 6%

Asian2 UD 648 4% 718 4%

EPP 22 7% 26 8%

Native American UD 21 < 1% 13 < 1%

EPP 1 < 1% 1 < 1%

International2 UD 524 3% 723 4%

EPP n/a n/a n/a n/a

Other2 UD 684 4% 650 4%

EPP 27 9% 16 5%

In both 2010 and 2013-2014, we recruited first-year and senior students to take the EPP.

For first-year students in both rounds of testing, we asked faculty teaching First-Year Seminar

(FYS) courses if we could administer the test during one of their class sessions in the fall. We

targeted faculty teaching a diverse set of FYS courses including some that were largely aimed at

students with particular declared majors and those with a high percentage of University Studies

students. When recruiting senior students in 2010, we relied largely on open recruitment of UD

students via posters. In 2013-2014, we changed this procedure to be similar to our first-year

student process except we focused on capstone classes instead of FYS classes. As shown in

Table 4, we were not entirely successful in completely representing the student body in terms of

the UD college in which they have a declared major. However, this is a flawed and difficult

comparison because the EPP has a limited selection of majors that a student can choose and the

2 These categories are not directly comparable between the UD population and EPP sample because of

different categorizations and questions.

data files do not include the written “Other:” responses from the students. Therefore, it is

possible that much of the discrepancy between the study sample and the population is hidden in

the nearly one-third of students who selected that option. For example, one of the senior

capstone classes to whom we administered the EPP was a sports management course, a major in

the Alfred Lerner College of Business & Economics but one not listed in the EPP for students to

select.

Table 4: College of UD Undergraduate Population and EPP Sample

2010 2013-2014

EPP UD EPP UD

College of Agriculture & Natural

Resources

1% 4% 2% 4%

Alfred Lerner College of Business &

Economics

6% 18% 0% 17%

College of Arts & Sciences 24% 39% 33% 37%

College of Education & Human

Development

5% 6% 2% 6%

College of Engineering 5% 11% 15% 14%

College of Earth, Ocean, & Environment 6% 1% 1% 2%

College of Health Sciences 3% 12% 9% 14%

No answer/other 30% n/a 31% n/a

Office of University Studies 21% 7% 9% 7%

Test Results

There are two groups of results that are returned to institutions whose students participate

in the Educational Proficiency Profile. First, norm-referenced scaled numeric scores for each

skill area are included in the data files. These scores range from 100 to 130 and are not

comparable to one another but are intended to be compared with the scores of other students.

Second, criterion-referenced proficiency levels for each skill area are included in the data files.

Students are rated using these proficiency levels as proficient, marginal, or not proficient at each

level of each skill area. More detailed information on the construction of these proficiency levels

can be found on ETS’s website at

http://www.ets.org/proficiencyprofile/scores/proficiency_classifications/.

One minor methodological note about student class level is necessary. In the EPP,

students were asked to identify how many course hours they had completed: None entering

freshman, Fewer than 30 semester hours or fewer than 45 quarter hours, 30 - 60 semester hours

or 45 - 90 quarter hours, 61 - 90 semester hours or 91 - 145 quarter hours, or More than 90

semester hours or more than 145 quarter hours. ETS reports only allow us to select all students

or students who selected only one of those response options so between-university comparisons

are somewhat stilted. However, for within-university comparisons we are able to use raw data

and create a derived class variable that combines the first two response options into a more

representative “first-year” response category and retain the final response option as the “senior”

response category. We omit students who selected the remaining response options as they were

mistakenly included in the study sample, an artifact of how we recruited senior student

participants by focusing on capstone classes in which a handful of junior students were also

enrolled.

Between-university comparisons. The reporting tools offered by ETS permit us to select

peer comparison groups and receive summary statistics for those groups. We can make these

comparisons at the student and the institution level. However, this tool is limited in several

ways. First, the group of institutions that can be included in our selection is somewhat limited as

the EPP is only one of many ways to assess general education goals and other institutions are

free to employ other methods e.g., the Collegiate Learning Assessment, electronic portfolios.

Second, we are constrained by how we can select the student groups to be compared in that we

can only choose to compare all of our students (who have taken the test) to all of the students at

our peer institutions (who have taken the test) or we can select one particular (limited) class level

as described above.

In this report, we compare UD students to two other groups of students. First, we

compare UD students to students at four-year colleges and universities who have taken the EPP

since July 2009. Second, we compare UD students to students at universities that are somewhat

comparable to UD.

All four-year institutions. As shown in Table 5, students at several hundred colleges and

universities have participated in the EPP since 2009. Although this group of colleges and

universities may not be completely representative of the entire population of four-year colleges

and universities in the United States, there are enough of them to make a comparison between

these groups of students and UD students a useful one. The entire listing of these institutions is

included as Appendix B.

Table 5: EPP Four-year Colleges and Universities

Entering first-year

student with 0 credits

Less than 30 credits but

more than 0 credits

Senior

students

Number of institutions 237 208 316

Total number of students 167,916 51,783 179,711

As shown in the following tables, UD students fare well in all areas included in the EPP

when compared against students at all of the four-year colleges and universities who have

administered the EPP. We caution, however, that this may not be a very meaningful comparison

since we do not know anything about the methods by which students at other institutions were

selected to participate nor do we know the purposes for which these institutions administered the

EPP. For those reasons, we only supply basic descriptive statistics in these three tables and the

difference between the student-level averages without any statistical analysis that may lead

readers to lend more weight to these comparisons than is appropriate. Additional tables list the

percentages of students who were classified in each of ETS’s proficiency levels.

Table 6: Entering First-Year Student Score Comparisons With All EPP Four-Year Institutions

University of Delaware

(n=276)

All four-year institutions

(n=137,8753)

Mean Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation Difference

Critical

Thinking

111.9 6.2 109.6 5.8 2.3

Reading 118.3 6.3 115.3 7.0 3.0

Writing 115.8 4.5 112.8 5.1 3.0

Math 114.8 5.8 111.7 5.7 3.1

Humanities 114.7 6.5 112.9 6.1 1.8

Social Sciences 114.0 6.0 111.5 5.9 2.5

Natural

Sciences

115.4 5.3 113.3 5.8 2.1

Total 447.9 17.9 436.5 18.3 11.4

3 This is a weighted total that corrects for institutional size so institutions with very large samples are not

disproportionately represented in the reported statistics.

Table 7: Entering First-Year Student Proficiency Comparisons With All EPP Four-Year

Institutions

University of Delaware (n=276)


(n=137,875)

Not

Proficient Marginal Proficient

Not


Critical Thinking 80% 16% 4% 88% 10% 2%

Reading, Level 2 42% 26% 32% 61% 17% 21%

Reading, Level 1 11% 21% 68% 29% 23% 48%

Writing, Level 3 56% 32% 12% 78% 17% 5%

Writing, Level 2 34% 37% 28% 58% 29% 12%

Writing, Level 1 4% 26% 71% 19% 32% 49%

Mathematics, Level 3 69% 23% 8% 85% 11% 4%



Table 8: First-Year Students With Some Credits Score Comparisons With All EPP Four-Year

Institutions


(n=95)


(n=37,9153)

Mean

Standard

Deviation Mean

Standard

Deviation Difference

Critical Thinking 111.3 6.0 109.9 6.1 1.4

Reading 117.6 6.8 115.6 7.3 2.0

Writing 115.8 5.4 112.8 5.3 3.0

Math 114.6 5.5 111.8 6.0 2.8

Humanities 114.3 6.6 113.3 6.4 1.0

Social Sciences 113.2 5.7 111.8 6.2 1.4

Natural Sciences 115.0 5.4 113.5 6.0 1.5

Total 446.4 19.3 437.1 19.5 9.3

Table 9: First-Year Students With Some Credits Proficiency Comparisons With All EPP Four-

Year Institutions



(n=137,875)

Not


Not



Reading, Level 2 48% 22% 29% 60% 17% 24%

Reading, Level 1 14% 23% 63% 29% 22% 49%

Writing, Level 3 57% 26% 17% 77% 18% 5%

Writing, Level 2 33% 37% 31% 58% 29% 13%

Writing, Level 1 8% 21% 71% 21% 31% 48%




Table 10: Senior Student Score Comparisons With All EPP Four-Year Institutions


(n=228)


(n=134,8713)

Mean

Standard

Deviation Mean

Standard



Reading 121.4 6.5 118.6 7.1 2.8

Writing 117.3 4.6 114.7 5.1 2.6

Math 118.3 6.1 113.9 6.3 4.3

Humanities 116.9 7.1 115.6 6.6 1.3

Social Sciences 116.9 6.0 114.1 6.4 2.8


Total 460.7 20.2 446.4 20.6 14.3

Table 11: Senior Student Proficiency Comparisons With All EPP Four-Year Institutions



(n=137,875)

Not


Not



Reading, Level 2 25% 19% 57% 42% 19% 39%

Reading, Level 1 7% 10% 82% 17% 17% 66%

Writing, Level 3 45% 32% 23% 65% 26% 9%

Writing, Level 2 18% 43% 39% 43% 36% 22%

Writing, Level 1 3% 12% 85% 12% 25% 63%




Public research universities. Although a comparison of UD students against all students

at four-year institutions is a reasonable starting point, a more useful comparison is one made

against students at peer institutions. Although we tried to use preexisting lists of peer and

comparison groups constructed by the Office of the Provost, the number of institutions that have

participated in the EPP and the ETS-imposed requirement that comparison groups to be of a

minimum size of ten required us to expand our selections to include all public institutions with

the same Basic Carnegie Classification of RU/VH: Research Universities (very high research

activity); these institutions and the number of students who participated in the EPP are listed in

Table 12.

Table 12: EPP Peer Institutions

Entering first-

year student

with 0 credits

Less than 30

credits but more

than 0 credits Senior students

Arizona State University - Tempe, AZ 788 226 0

Clemson University, SC 5,258 1,490 1,771

Mississippi State University, MS 2,135 0 0

Indiana University - Bloomington, IN 0 0 102

Montana State University, MT 176 0 0

Mississippi State University, MS 0 194 3,840


North Carolina State University, NC 0 536 325

Purdue University - West Lafayette, IN 0 110 130

University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL 2,039 681 239

University of Alabama in Huntsville, AL 0 0 605

University of Cincinnati, OH 129 40 152

University of Georgia, GA 0 141 434

University of Illinois, IL 40 131 0

University of Missouri - Columbia, MO 180 67 1,133

University of South Carolina - Columbia, SC 52 0 212

University of South Florida - Tampa, FL 76 39 76

University of Tennessee - Knoxville, TN 812 108 67

Wayne State University, MI 195 57 323

Total 11,880 3,820 9,633

The next set of tables compares the scores and proficiency levels of UD students against

the average scores and proficiency levels of students at all of the four-year public research

universities that have participated in the EPP. As before, UD students fare well in all areas

included in the EPP. We again caution, however, that this may not be a very meaningful

comparison since we do not know anything about the methods by which students at other

institutions were selected to participate nor do we know the purposes for which these institutions

administered the EPP.

Table 13: Entering First-Year Student Score Comparisons With EPP Public Research

Universities


(n=276) EPP Peers (n=9,6224)

Mean

Standard

Deviation Mean

Standard



Reading 118.3 6.3 115.3 6.6 3.0

Writing 115.8 4.5 112.8 4.6 3.0

Math 114.8 5.8 111.7 6.0 3.1

Humanities 114.7 6.5 112.9 6.4 1.8

Social Sciences 114.0 6.0 111.5 6.0 2.5


Total 447.9 17.9 436.5 18.8 11.4

Table 14: Entering First-Year Student Proficiency Comparisons With EPP Public Research

Universities

University of Delaware (n=276) EPP Peers (n=9,622)

Not


Not



Reading, Level 2 42% 26% 32% 40% 22% 38%

Reading, Level 1 11% 21% 68% 13% 17% 70%

Writing, Level 3 56% 32% 12% 60% 29% 11%

Writing, Level 2 34% 37% 28% 37% 40% 24%

Writing, Level 1 4% 26% 71% 6% 23% 70%




4 This is a weighted total that corrects for institutional size so institutions with very large samples are not

disproportionately represented in the reported statistics.

Table 15: First-Year Students With Some Credits Score Comparisons With EPP Public Research

Universities


(n=95) EPP Peers (n=3,2304)

Mean

Standard

Deviation Mean

Standard


Critical Thinking 111.3 6.0 113.1 6.4 -1.8

Reading 117.6 6.8 119.6 6.7 -2.0

Writing 115.8 5.4 116.0 4.7 -0.2

Math 114.6 5.5 116.5 6.1 -1.9

Humanities 114.3 6.6 115.9 6.5 -1.7

Social Sciences 113.2 5.7 114.6 6.1 -1.4

Natural Sciences 115.0 5.4 116.6 5.6 -1.6

Total 446.4 19.3 452.5 19.4 -6.1

Table 16: First-Year Students With Some Credits Proficiency Comparisons With EPP Public

Research Universities


Not


Not



Reading, Level 2 48% 22% 29% 35% 21% 44%

Reading, Level 1 14% 23% 63% 11% 16% 73%

Writing, Level 3 57% 26% 17% 56% 31% 13%

Writing, Level 2 33% 37% 31% 30% 42% 28%

Writing, Level 1 8% 21% 71% 6% 20% 75%




Table 17: Senior Student Score Comparisons With EPP Public Research Universities


(n=228) EPP Peers (n=7,7934)

Mean

Standard

Deviation Mean

Standard



Reading 121.4 6.5 121.0 6.5 0.3

Writing 117.3 4.6 116.5 4.6 0.8

Math 118.3 6.1 117.5 6.4 0.8

Humanities 116.9 7.1 117.2 6.7 -0.3

Social Sciences 116.9 6.0 115.9 6.3 1.0


Total 460.7 20.2 457.2 20.3 3.5

Table 18: Senior Student Proficiency Comparisons With EPP Public Research Universities


Not


Not



Reading, Level 2 25% 19% 57% 27% 19% 53%

Reading, Level 1 7% 10% 82% 8% 13% 79%

Writing, Level 3 45% 32% 23% 52% 33% 16%

Writing, Level 2 18% 43% 39% 27% 41% 32%

Writing, Level 1 3% 12% 85% 4% 18% 78%




Within-university comparisons. ETS also supplies us with the ability to create reports that

compare groups of UD students to other groups of UD students. There are essentially four

groups of UD students who have taken the EPP: first-year5 and senior students in 2010 and first-

year5 and senior students in 2013-2014. Comparing first-year and senior students who took the

5 For purposes of these within-university comparisons, “first-year students” are those who indicated on the

EPP that they had either no credit hours or fewer than 30 semester hours, two different response options combined

into category for these analyses.

test in the same year is a comparison that yields little actionable, useful information because

those are different groups of students who were admitted in different years under different

conditions and have had different experiences at UD. However, the other three comparisons may

yield useful information.

First-year-2010-cohort-to-senior-2013-cohort. The most meaningful comparison we

can make with these data is to compare the scores of first-year students with those of senior

students who are in the same class. Only three students who took the test in 2010 and 2013-2014

but this remains a meaningful comparison since the sizes of the sample and the sampling

methods make us relatively confident in our ability to generalize these scores to the entire class.

Table 19, illustrated in Figure 1, shows that this cohort of UD students made significant gains in

areas tested by the EPP with nearly all areas showing a large effect size. Table 20, illustrated in

Figure 2, shows similar information using the ETS proficiency scores.

Table 19: First-year-2010-cohort-to-senior-2013-cohort Score Comparisons

2010 (n=185) 2013-2014 (n=136)

Mean Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation Difference p

Effect

size

Critical

Thinking

110.4 5.7 115.4 6.6 5.0 < .01 0.83

Reading 116.8 5.8 121.5 6.5 4.7 < .01 0.77

Writing 114.7 4.7 117.6 4.7 2.8 < .01 0.61

Math 112.9 5.1 119.3 5.5 6.5 < .01 1.23

Humanities 113.8 6.1 116.5 7.4 2.7 0.01 0.41

Social

Sciences

112.7 5.6 116.9 6.3 4.2 < .01 0.72

Natural

Sciences

114.2 5.0 118.5 5.0 4.3 < .01 0.87

Total 441.0 14.6 461.9 18.8 20.9 < .01 1.27

Table 20: First-year-2010-cohort-to-senior-2013-cohort Proficiency Comparisons

2010 (n=185) 2013-2014 (n=136)

Not


Not



Reading, Level 2 54% 22% 24% 24% 22% 54%

Reading, Level 1 15% 25% 60% 7% 10% 82%

Writing, Level 3 60% 32% 8% 43% 31% 26%

Writing, Level 2 42% 35% 23% 20% 43% 37%

Writing, Level 1 8% 27% 65% 4% 13% 83%




Figure 1: First-year-2010-cohort-to-senior-2013-cohort Score Comparisons

110.4

116.8

114.7

112.9113.8

112.7

114.2

115.4

121.5

117.6

119.3

116.5 116.9

118.5

100.0

105.0

110.0

115.0

120.0

125.0

130.0

Critical

Thinking

Reading Writing Math Humanities Social

Sciences

Natural

Sciences

First-year students (2010) Senior students (2013-2014)

Figure 2: First-year-2010-cohort-to-senior-2013-cohort Proficiency Comparisons

First-year-cohort-to-first-year-cohort. Comparing the first-year cohort in 2010 to the first-

year cohort in 2013 provides some information about the levels of preparation and ability of

these two different groups of students who have not spent much time at UD. As shown in Table

21, UD students who were admitted in 2013 scored significantly higher than students admitted in

2010. Effect sizes for these differences were small or medium for each subscale with a large

cumulative effect size for the total scaled score. This is consistent with the small increase in

average SAT scores for incoming (first-time first-year) students in 2013 compared to their peers

in 2010.

2%

24%

60%

8%

23%

65%

4%

25%

55%

14%

54%

82%

26%

37%

83%

23%

68%

88%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

First-year students (2010) Senior students (2013-2014)

Table 21: First-year-cohort-to-first-year-cohort Score Comparisons

2010 (n=185) 2013 (n=186)

Mean

Standard

Deviation Mean

Standard

Deviation Difference p

Effect

size

Critical Thinking 110.4 5.7 113.2 6.2 2.8 < .00 0.47

Reading 116.8 5.8 119.4 6.9 2.6 < .00 0.42

Writing 114.7 4.7 116.9 4.6 2.1 < .00 0.46

Math 112.9 5.1 116.6 5.8 3.7 < .00 0.69

Humanities 113.8 6.1 115.4 6.9 1.6 0.02 0.24

Social Sciences 112.7 5.6 114.9 6.0 2.2 < .00 0.38

Natural Sciences 114.2 5.0 116.4 5.5 2.2 < .00 0.43

Total 441.0 14.6 453.9 19.3 12.9 < .00 0.75

Table 22: First-year-cohort-to-first-year-cohort Proficiency Comparisons

2010 (n=185) 2013-2014 (n=186)

Not


Not



Reading, Level 2 54% 22% 24% 33% 29% 38%

Reading, Level 1 15% 25% 60% 9% 18% 73%

Writing, Level 3 60% 32% 8% 53% 28% 19%

Writing, Level 2 42% 35% 23% 26% 39% 34%

Writing, Level 1 8% 27% 65% 2% 22% 76%




Senior-cohort-to-senior-cohort. Since the 2010 and 2013 first-year student groups were

relatively comparable with small but significant increases for the 2014 cohort, it is useful to

compare the two senior cohorts to see if there are similar differences. Table 23 shows that only

one subscale, math, is significantly different with the 2013-2014 cohort scoring significantly

higher with a medium effect size.

Table 23: Senior-cohort-to-senior-cohort Score Comparisons

2010 (n=92) 2013-2014 (n=136)

Mean Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation Difference p

Effect

size

Critical

Thinking

115.8 6.6 115.4 6.6 -0.4 0.69 -0.05

Reading 121.1 6.7 121.5 6.5 0.4 0.69 0.05

Writing 117.0 4.5 117.6 4.7 0.6 0.34 0.13

Math 116.7 6.6 119.3 5.5 2.7 < .01 0.45

Humanities 117.5 6.6 116.5 7.4 -1.0 0.32 -0.13

Social

Sciences

116.9 5.7 116.9 6.3 0.0 0.98 .00

Natural

Sciences

118.2 5.6 118.5 5.0 0.3 0.93 0.06

Total 458.8 22.1 461.9 18.8 3.2 0.65 0.16

Table 24: Senior-cohort-to-senior-cohort Proficiency Comparisons

2010 (n=92) 2013-2014 (n=136)

Not


Not



Reading, Level 2 26% 14% 60% 24% 22% 54%

Reading, Level 1 8% 10% 83% 7% 10% 82%

Writing, Level 3 47% 35% 18% 43% 31% 26%

Writing, Level 2 16% 41% 42% 20% 43% 37%

Writing, Level 1 2% 11% 87% 4% 13% 83%




Implications

The picture painted by these test scores is generally positive. Between-university

comparisons show that the UD students who took the EPP, students who are broadly

representative of their respective classes, performed better than students at other institutions who

have taken the EPP. The differences narrow when comparing UD students to students at other

public Research Universities (very high research activity) universities and in one instance, first-

year students with some credits (e.g., transfer students, first-year students with AP credits), UD

students received lower scores. However, these are not very informative comparisons because

we do not know the sampling methods of these other institutions or the purposes for which they

administered the EPP. Moreover, very few of our peers have participated in the EPP making it

challenging to determine how our students perform relative to students at comparable

universities.

It is more useful and informative to compare the EPP results of different groups of UD

students to inform and confirm our understandings and intuitions of UD students and a UD

education. First, UD students made statistically significant gains in every area tested by the EPP

when comparing average results from first-year students to senior students in the same cohort. In

the broadest sense, this indicates that students are indeed learning general education skills and

knowledge during their time at UD. Second, the EPP confirms that students who began in 2013

were more academically qualified than those who began in 2010 (as already known by their

higher average SAT scores). Third, senior students in 2010 and 2013-2014 had EPP scores that

were statistically indistinguishable with only their math scores being significantly higher for

2013-2014 senior students. This may be interpreted as an indication that the UD undergraduate

education has remained broadly consistent during the past four years as both groups of students

rose to the same levels of proficiency in these general education skills despite starting from

slightly different places.

Recommendations

Based on these test results, our experience administering the EPP for a second time,

experience with general education at the University of Delaware, and our broader knowledge of

U.S. higher education, the Center for Teaching & Assessment of Learning makes the

recommendations below. Although these recommendations would likely be carried out or

coordinated by CTAL, we require specific guidance and charges from the Office of the Provost,

ideally following extensive consultation with faculty, to implement these university-wide, multi-

year assessments.

1. Adopt a cross-college, cross-discipline method of assessing general education skills

and knowledge that is more actionable. EPP scores are not actionable given their

vagueness and opacity. Smaller, more targeted assessments grounded in coursework

or disciplinary work may be more appropriate and useful. Similarly, electronic

portfolios or expanded transcripts where students are required to upload work that

they feel indicates mastery of the general education goals to be assessed by UD

faculty (e.g., CTAL Assessment Scholars using AAC&U rubrics) may be more

viable, actionable, and accepted by UD constituents. Work that directly involves

faculty such as the Critical thinking Assessment Test (CAT) would also be an

effective, viable means of assessing a significant portion of our goals.

2. Place a greater emphasis on assessing samples of students that reflect UD priorities

and needs. For example, if we are particularly interested in large-scale, longitudinal

work then we should ensure we are assessing representative samples that are ideally

the same ones at different points in time e.g., assess the same group of students as

first-year students and as seniors. This could also include targeted assessments of

specific groups of students e.g., quantitative reasoning skills of non-STEM students.

This work would be greatly enabled if UD were to adopt a regular, scheduled time for

the structured collection of assessment data and reflection on how it can improve

university practices like the “Assessment Day” held twice annually at James Madison

University.

Appendix A: ETS Proficiency Profile Levels6

Reading and Critical Thinking

Level 1. To be considered proficient at Level 1, students should be able to:

recognize factual material explicitly presented in a reading passage

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

passage


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


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

6 Copied from http://www.ets.org/proficiencyprofile/scores/proficiency_classifications/levels

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


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


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


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


solve word problems that would most likely be solved by arithmetic and do not

involve conversion of units or proportionality. These problems can be multistep 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 percent).

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.


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.


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: All EPP-Participating 4-Year Institutions

Institution

Entering first-

year student

with 0 credits

Less than 30

credits but

more than 0

credits Senior students

Abilene Christian University, TX 0 0 40

Alabama A&M University, AL 1,457 354 0

Alabama State University, AL 3,310 1,108 104

Albertus Magnus College, CT 469 341 705

Alcorn State University, MS 309 75 0

Alice Lloyd College, KY 634 151 0

American Intercontinental University, IL 69 60 0

American Public University, WV 0 279 7,174

American Sentinel University, CO 250 39 57

Anderson University - South Carolina, SC 2,259 220 931

Andrews University, MI 0 0 1,377

Antioch University McGregor, OH 69 63 329

Aquinas College (MI), MI 75 0 92

Arizona State University - Tempe, AZ 788 226 0

Arkansas State University, AR 137 87 228

Armstrong Atlantic State University, GA 0 0 3,870

Asbury University, KY 855 315 352

Ashford University, IA 1,255 2,198 2,364

Athens State University, AL 169 147 876

Austin Peay State University, TN 0 0 1,007

Ave Maria University, FL 182 33 106

Azusa Pacific University, CA 1,008 101 0

Baldwin Wallace University, OH 347 0 279

Bauder College, GA 0 0 36

Belhaven University (MS), MS 0 100 536

Bellarmine University, KY 74 0 79

Bemidji State University, MN 198 0 220

Benedict College, SC 868 1,140 0

Bennett College for Women, NC 331 119 240

Bethel College, IN 0 0 252

Bethel University, TN 1,517 388 455

Biola University, CA 0 0 38

Bloomsburg University, PA 7,384 1,222 2,028

Blue Mountain College, MS 129 0 81

Institution

Entering first-

year student

with 0 credits

Less than 30

credits but

more than 0


Bluffton University, OH 891 252 946

Bowie State University, MD 190 0 91

Bradley University, IL 84 0 88

Brenau University, GA 485 40 505

Brescia University, KY 559 70 0

Brewton-Parker College, GA 256 42 59

Bridgewater College, VA 0 0 447

Bryan College, TN 98 0 138

Cairn University, PA 619 146 382

California University of Pennsylvania, PA 110 102 151

Campbell University, NC 1,326 255 601

Capella University, MN 0 0 276

Capital University, OH 2,089 142 31

Cazenovia College, NY 628 0 323

Charleston Southern University, SC 0 0 269

Charter Oak State College, CT 0 0 504

Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, PA 59 0 39

Christian Brothers University, TN 0 0 39

Citadel, The, SC 69 38 0

Clarion University of Pennsylvania, PA 115 367 475

Clark Atlanta University, GA 2,902 216 59

Clayton State University, GA 1,710 191 848

Clemson University, SC 5,258 1,490 1,771

Coastal Carolina University, SC 0 0 303

College of Charleston, SC 0 173 180

College of New Jersey, The, NJ 171 0 228

College of New Rochelle, The, NY 0 0 46

College of the Ozarks, MO 259 61 43

Colorado Mesa University, CO 0 0 479

Colorado State University- Global

Campus, CO

175 211 175

Colorado State University-Pueblo, CO 162 32 288

Columbia College (MO), MO 212 46 801

Concordia College, MN 944 78 103

Concordia University (CA), CA 481 0 105

Concordia University Chicago, IL 1,406 204 656

Concordia University Wisconsin, WI 387 0 0

Institution

Entering first-

year student

with 0 credits

Less than 30

credits but

more than 0


Concordia University, MI 123 0 0

Coppin State University, MD 35 42 58

Covenant College, GA 270 32 101

Daemen College, NY 0 0 50

Dallas Baptist University, TX 0 0 317

Delaware Valley College, PA 0 0 109

Denison University, OH 0 0 102

DeVry University, IL 433 600 122

Dickinson State University, ND 1,072 85 312

Dordt College, IA 1,322 140 398

East Stroudsburg University, PA 2,151 88 851

Eastern Mennonite University, VA 0 0 53

Eastern New Mexico University, NM 187 0 203

Eastern University, PA 1,002 89 0

Eckerd College, FL 351 59 112

ECPI University, NC 0 48 1,335

Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, PA 196 0 187

Elizabeth City State University, NC 1,775 305 0

Endicott College, MA 1,821 61 276

Erskine College, SC 285 35 0

Everglades University, FL 0 0 573

Excelsior College, NY 0 203 537

Felician College - Lodi, NJ 0 0 943

Ferrum College, VA 1,947 228 0

Fisher College, MA 129 0 0

Fisk University, TN 473 54 320

Florida Agricultural and Mechanical

University, FL

2,174 331 1,673

Florida Gulf Coast University, FL 34 70 0

Florida International University, FL 2,037 399 1,004

Florida Southern College - Lakeland, FL 0 34 0

Forman Christian College, non-US 199 0 155

Fort Hays State University, KS 0 65 84

Fort Lewis College, CO 0 0 139

Francis Marion University, SC 0 0 67

Friends University, KS 0 0 236

Gardner-Webb University, NC 55 0 0

Institution

Entering first-

year student

with 0 credits

Less than 30

credits but

more than 0


George Fox University (OR), OR 137 0 95

Georgetown College, KY 0 0 668

Governors State University, IL 0 43 314

Grambling State University, LA 0 55 1,216

Grand Canyon University, AZ 34 75 0

Guilford College, NC 0 38 342

Harrison College - Indianapolis, IN 72 0 0

Henderson State University, AR 319 46 0

Hesser College, NH 46 56 33

High Point University, NC 749 343 270

Holy Family University, PA 0 0 298

Houghton College, NY 0 0 118

Houston Baptist University, TX 241 141 121

Howard Payne University, TX 0 0 155

Humboldt State University, CA 0 0 63

Huston-Tillotson University, TX 255 45 46

Indiana State University, IN 476 57 251

Indiana University - Bloomington, IN 0 0 102

Indiana University - System Office, IN 1,298 80 88

instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios

Superiores de, non-US

0 0 143

Jacksonville State University, AL 0 44 262

Jarvis Christian College, TX 243 0 69

Judson College, AL 0 0 101

Kaplan University, IL 203 349 386

Keystone College, PA 75 292 65

Kutztown University of Pennsylvania, PA 161 0 130

Kuyper College, MI 66 0 0

LaGrange College, GA 181 0 54

Lake Superior State University, MI 2,706 242 755

Lamar University , TX 91 166 556

Lambuth University, TN 0 0 51

Lander University, SC 2,451 155 1,461

Lee University, TN 0 0 1,283

LeTourneau University, TX 0 0 930

Lewis-Clark State College, ID 0 0 242

Liberty University, VA 112 585 368

Institution

Entering first-

year student

with 0 credits

Less than 30

credits but

more than 0


Limestone College, SC 978 257 1,256

Lincoln Memorial University, TN 0 0 117

Lindenwood University, MO 711 469 515

Lock Haven University of PA, PA 146 52 57

Loyola University New Orleans , LA 416 36 0

Maharishi University of Management, IA 219 127 253

Mansfield University, PA 551 78 373

Maranatha Baptist University, WI 803 190 614

Marian University (IN), IN 0 0 798

Marietta College, OH 294 34 131

Mary Baldwin College, VA 187 0 210

Massachusetts Maritime Academy, MA 1,368 144 687

McNeese State University, LA 0 31 972

Metropolitan State College of Denver, CO 0 0 62

Midland University, NE 532 154 377

Midway College, KY 324 165 396

Milligan College, TN 317 0 0

Minnesota State University Moorhead,

MN

164 42 181

Minnesota State University-Mankato-

Economics, MN

0 0 31

Minnesota State University, Mankato, MN 250 0 150

Misericordia University, PA 390 0 0

Mississippi College, MS 0 0 1,260

Mississippi State University, MS 2,135 194 3,840

Mississippi Valley State University, MS 94 0 309

Missouri Southern State University, MO 2,761 646 3,323

Missouri State University, MO 170 96 13,299

Missouri University of Science and

Technology, MO

0 58 0

Missouri Western State University, MO 0 0 2,846

Montana State University - Billings, MT 0 0 36


Montana Tech of the University of

Montana, MT

0 0 807

Morehouse College, GA 1,257 146 0

Institution

Entering first-

year student

with 0 credits

Less than 30

credits but

more than 0


Morgan State University, MD 132 0 75

Mount Vernon Nazarene University, OH 578 67 128

Neumann University, PA 935 692 431

New Jersey Institute of Technology, NJ 0 0 39

Newberry College, SC 374 68 760

Nicholls State University, LA 0 0 564

Norfolk State University, VA 365 376 67

North Carolina A&T State University, NC 181 0 157

North Carolina State University, NC 0 536 325

North Carolina Wesleyan College, NC 0 0 55

Northeastern Illinois University, IL 0 0 528

Northeastern State University, OK 0 0 62

Northern Arizona University, AZ 1,195 163 277

Northern Michigan University, MI 136 0 122

Northwest Missouri State University, MO 0 52 217

Norwich University, VT 0 60 142

Nova Southeastern University - Law

School, FL

438 0 0

Oakland City University, IN 0 0 245

Oglala Lakota College, SD 0 0 191

Ohio Christian University, OH 2,328 342 49

Oklahoma Baptist University, OK 0 0 83

Oklahoma State University, OK 121 31 125

Ottawa University- Phoenix, AZ 0 50 828

Ottawa University, KS 0 0 150

Pace University - New York, NY 0 0 130

Pacific Union College, CA 0 0 811

Palm Beach Atlantic University, FL 552 286 186

Patrick Henry College, VA 342 99 309

Patten University, CA 95 34 0

Paul Quinn College, TX 0 0 43

Pfeiffer University, NC 395 97 1,018

Philander Smith College, AR 0 0 252

Point Loma Nazarene University, CA 361 70 482

Point University, GA 0 0 518

Prairie View A&M University, TX 629 77 92

Institution

Entering first-

year student

with 0 credits

Less than 30

credits but

more than 0


Presentation College, SD 569 236 682

Providence College, RI 0 60 103

Purdue University - West Lafayette, IN 0 110 130

Queens University of Charlotte, NC 0 0 633

Quinnipiac University, CT 3,002 203 719

Randolph-Macon College, VA 41 0 0

Regent University, VA 524 424 107

Reinhardt University, GA 344 118 772

Rivier University, NH 181 0 153

Robert B. Miller College, MI 35 35 220

Rocky Mountain College, MT 0 0 124

Rogers State University, OK 226 0 0

Saint Augustines University, NC 0 67 106

Saint Joseph's College (IN), IN 544 0 0

Saint Leo University, FL 2,328 350 956

Saint Mary of the Woods University , IN 303 78 128

Saint Mary's University, TX 0 47 0

Saint Peter's College, NJ 0 299 0

Saint Philips College, TX 201 444 91

Sam Houston State University, TX 159 71 209

Schreiner University, TX 0 0 390

Seattle University, WA 85 0 78

Shawnee State University, OH 0 0 83

Shenandoah University, VA 611 0 703

Shepherd University, WV 86 0 63

Shorter University, GA 278 0 0

Slippery Rock University of PA, PA 210 0 175

South Carolina State University, SC 758 134 387

South College, TN 111 87 383

Southeast Missouri State University, MO 9,783 1,983 4,720

Southeastern University, FL 1,659 534 1,652

Southern Adventist University, TN 0 0 1,337

Southern Illinois University Carbondale,

IL

200 0 220

Southern Illinois University Edwardsville,

IL

0 0 512

Southern Utah University, UT 0 0 34

Institution

Entering first-

year student

with 0 credits

Less than 30

credits but

more than 0


Southern Vermont College, VT 0 45 0

Southern Wesleyan University, SC 0 44 0

Southwest Baptist University, MO 335 186 758

Southwestern Assemblies of God

University, TX

0 0 74

Southwestern Christian College, TX 0 49 0

Southwestern College, KS 518 164 217

Spalding University, KY 832 369 37

Spelman College, GA 1,561 172 156

Spring Hill College, AL 155 0 0

St. Andrews University, NC 287 0 0

Stephen F. Austin State University, TX 1,013 223 1,204

Sterling College, KS 140 33 176

Stevenson University, MD 210 36 0

Strayer University, DC 0 150 420

SUNY at Binghamton, NY 109 0 164

Talladega College, AL 0 179 79

Tarleton State University, TX 222 160 408

Taylor University, IN 113 0 135

Temple University, PA 388 0 342

Tennessee State University, TN 0 0 3,640

Tennessee Wesleyan College, TN 483 0 391

Texas A&M University - Central Texas,

TX

0 0 54

Texas A&M University - San Antonio,

TX

51 110 781

Texas A&M University - Texarkana, TX 0 0 80

Texas A&M University Kingsville, TX 251 157 573

Texas A&M University-Commerce, TX 58 0 57

Texas Tech University Health Sciences

Center, TX

0 0 183

Texas Wesleyan University, TX 34 32 128

The New School, NY 67 0 60

Thomas Edison State College, NJ 91 543 3,118

Thomas More College, KY 1,259 95 634

Total 167,916 51,783 179,711

Touro College, CA 92 0 65

Institution

Entering first-

year student

with 0 credits

Less than 30

credits but

more than 0


Touro College, NY 72 156 568

Trevecca Nazarene University, TN 0 0 427

Troy University - Global, AL 0 0 211

Troy University, AL 0 327 1,787

Truman State University, MO 0 0 86

Tusculum College, TN 148 0 324

Union College (NE), NE 257 44 0

University of Akron, The, OH 37 157 219

University of Alabama at Birmingham,

AL

2,039 681 239

University of Alabama in Huntsville, AL 0 0 605

University of Alaska Fairbanks, AK 81 51 95

University of Arkansas - Little Rock, AR 0 0 52

University of Central Arkansas, AR 188 0 94

University of Central Missouri, MO 0 248 972

University of Central Oklahoma, OK 0 198 720

University of Charleston, WV 305 141 506

University of Cincinnati, OH 129 40 152

University of Colorado - Denver, CO 565 203 466

University of Colorado, CO 879 106 728

University of Georgia, GA 0 141 434

University of Houston - Downtown, TX 0 0 110

University of Houston - Victoria, TX 105 78 0

University of Illinois at Springfield, IL 231 0 0

University of Illinois, IL 40 131 0

University of Kansas, KS 0 66 89

University of Louisiana - Lafayette, LA 0 0 51

University of Maine - Fort Kent, ME 0 0 78

University of Maine - Presque Isle, ME 594 85 71

University of Maryland - Eastern Shore,

MD

460 65 688

University of Maryland - University

College, MD

126 104 432

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth,

MA

235 0 46

University of Massachusetts Lowell, MA 185 0 119

University of Mississippi, MS 1,814 574 84

Institution

Entering first-

year student

with 0 credits

Less than 30

credits but

more than 0


University of Missouri - Columbia, MO 180 67 1,133

University of Missouri - Kansas City, MO 0 0 4,857

University of Mobile, AL 109 33 166

University of Mount Olive, NC 482 59 54

University of Nevada, NV 343 0 211

University of North Carolina at

Greensboro, NC

369 80 124

University of North Carolina at

Wilmington, NC

0 0 238

University of North Carolina, NC 0 0 267

University of North Florida, FL 633 270 1,294

University of North Texas - Dallas, TX 218 108 332

University of North Texas - Denton, TX 0 0 194

University of Northern Iowa, IA 1,089 323 448

University of Northwestern St. Paul, MN 121 37 0

University of Phoenix, AZ 5,006 8,214 5,212

University of Pikeville, KY 0 0 558

University of South Alabama, AL 40 33 336

University of South Carolina - Aiken, SC 702 128 372

University of South Carolina - Columbia,

SC

52 0 212

University of South Carolina - Upstate,

SC

199 32 680

University of South Florida - Sarasota-

Manatee, FL

58 33 81

University of South Florida - St.

Petersburg, FL

205 47 158

University of South Florida - Tampa, FL 76 39 76

University of South Florida Polytechnic,

FL

0 0 74

University of Southern Indiana, IN 7,430 1,554 2,063

University of Southern Mississippi, MS 385 71 1,197

University of Tennessee - Chattanooga,

TN

0 0 4,696

University of Tennessee - Knoxville, TN 812 108 67

University of Tennessee at Martin, TN 0 32 4,328

University of Texas at Tyler, TX 0 247 492

University of Texas Pan American, TX 0 0 31

Institution

Entering first-

year student

with 0 credits

Less than 30

credits but

more than 0


University of the Cumberlands, KY 1,122 263 39

University of the Ozarks, AR 90 56 71

University of Tulsa, OK 2,183 81 597

University of West Alabama, AL 683 77 0

University of Wisconsin - Platteville, WI 171 0 163

University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point,

WI

216 0 180

University of Wisconsin - Stout, WI 453 0 342

Vanguard University of Southern

California, CA

443 44 192

Victory University, TN 0 0 361

Walden University, MN 4,133 2,159 919

Warner Pacific College, OR 0 41 43

Washburn University, KS 872 247 1,152

Wayland Baptist University, TX 0 111 4,062

Wayne State University, MI 195 57 323

Webber International University, FL 1,084 247 66

West Virginia University, WV 177 83 0

Western Connecticut State University, CT 0 0 67

Western International University, AZ 0 0 41

Western Texas College, TX 131 105 0

Wiley College, TX 0 0 652

Wilkes University, PA 239 66 137

William Carey University, MS 346 63 0

Wilmington University, DE 0 0 84

Wingate University, NC 0 0 54

Winona State University, MN 0 153 116

Winston-Salem State University, NC 32 0 49

Winthrop University, SC 379 71 370

Worcester State College, MA 286 0 180

Total 335,832 103,566 359,422

Documents

REPORT ON ETS EPP TEST OF GENERAL EDUCATION SKILLS …...education skills and knowledge. The short form of the EPP is a 40-minute multiple choice test that includes questions about