A Performance Task on a Controversial Topic: “Legacy Admissions”
Introduction
In The Real World of College, we contend that the major goal of institutions of higher learning should be to enhance the content and the quality of students’ thinking. To determine whether such learning has in fact been enhanced, we introduce the idea of Higher Education Capital (HEDCAP, for short). And we suggest ways in which educators can assess whether students have in fact increased their abilities to attend, analyze, reflect, connect, and communicate about various topics.
In a pair of blogs, our colleagues Mita Banerjee and Olga Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia ponder a challenging problem of our time: the extent to which all of us are exposed to vast amounts of information, much of it of dubious value, if not completely misleading or wrong. They then introduce a promising way to examine how contemporary college and university students assimilate and make use of information that is available. Through careful control of that information, researchers can assess which forms of information attract students’ attention and how the students draw on that information when they carry out consequential tasks.
Teaching Critical Reasoning in the Information Age (Part 2/2)
In the previous blog, we described the challenge posed by the uncontrolled variety of messages available at one’s fingertips on any source of information. Here, we address this challenge by introducing an intervention using a simulated online environment. Researchers and educators can choose sources that are specifically opposed to one another and represent extreme positions. How the positions are expressed is also significant: For example, metaphors can be enlightening; but they also can produce shadows that hide key elements.
Not only does the specimen task simulate the online landscape in a controlled environment; it also—and importantly—simulates the (typical) situation in which a student has to make a decision. This is where the performative element of the task comes in: Researchers and educators think of a scenario in which this student does not only have to make a decision, but in which they have toacton this decision. Even if the environment is a controlled one, students can still choose which materials they consult from the document library included in the task.
The final component of the performance task is related to the concept of verisimilitude or fidelity. The more “true-to-life” a simulation is, the betterable to activate students’ performance. In the case on legacy admissions introduced here, students must weigh conflicting arguments. Institutions that support legacy admissions have argued that this policy is closely connected to their own sense of history and tradition. They are proud that families have sent their children to this institution generation after generation. Conversely, institutions who oppose legacy admissions have argued that such an admission policy may well discriminate against applicants in terms of race, class, and other demographic variables. Some applicants may simply not have parents or grandparents who have attended this institution; for these applicants, legacy admissions might well discourage rather than invite social change and innovation.
Following a general storyline about the institution, the student is now told specifics about their own role: “As an outstanding student working for the Institutional Research office at AAA college, you were invited to a meeting with the President of AAA College, the Dean of Admissions, the Vice President for Student Affairs, the Vice President for Advancement, and the Chief Diversity Officer”. (Braun, H.I., Borowiec, K., Shin, C., & Williams, E. (2019). Legacy Admissions Performance Tasks. (unpublished ms.). Chestnut HIll, MA: CSTEEP, Lynch School of Education and Human Development, Boston College)
While this is an imaginary situation devised by researchers, it is nonetheless a scenario of high fidelity, since the situation may well occur in ‘real life’. Students may come to the task not only with a knowledge of their own institution, but – depending on their family background or social situation – with prior beliefs and attitudes towards the matter of legacy admissions.
Since they are asked to report to an expert committee, however, they are strongly directed to set aside their own beliefs and values and to take into consideration arguments that might be in conflict with those convictions. The task is described to the student in some detail:
“All stakeholders, including the Board of Trustees, are expecting an official statement by the college on the topic. Your task is to produce a draft memo that the President and relevant parties will discuss before the meeting with the Board of Trustees. It should:
1. Clearly state your recommendation regarding the elimination of preference for legacy applicants.
2. Discuss why the alternative position is less desirable for the College.
3. Justify your position (for one alternative over the other) by drawing on, as appropriate, the following set of documents, and only this set of documents.”
To complete this performance task, students are asked to write a 600-word essay as their “draft memo.” On the basis of this essay, researchers and educators are now in a favorable position to assess the extent to which students are able to think critically, e.g., to engage in critical online reasoning (COR). To conduct such an assessment, researchers formulate criteria important for critical thinking and develop scoring rubrics. For the assessment of each students’ performance, researchers evaluate the essays based on several aspects.
First, they check whether students were able to understand the documents on a content level.
Second, related to students’ understanding of content, researchers then assess the “richness” of the students’ arguments. A problem such as legacy admissions requires students to understand different dimensions of the problem: For instance, the role and self-understanding of the institution, but also the dynamic of social change, which can occur only if institutions are willing to change and be prepared to accept applicants from a wide variety of social backgrounds.
Third, the assessment then moves from looking at students’ understanding of content to studying their ability to present a well-reasoned thesis. This thesis needs to be clear and understandable, and it is based on the conclusion that students drew from the materials they consulted. Moreover, students need to support their position with appropriate arguments. The conclusion must not only be well-articulated; it must also establish a logical link between the analysis and the conclusion that the student has drawn from it, for instance, the policy that they now suggest their institution – the AAA college – should take. Moreover, to arrive at this conclusion, the student has to acknowledge and refute counter-arguments.
Fourth, students have to provide evidence to support their conclusion. This stipulation requires them to create a link between their own position – the opinion they have now formed on legacy admissions on the basis of the documents they have consulted – and the arguments raised by others. Crucially, they also have to be able to assess the trustworthiness, credibility and validity of the sources they cite as evidence, e.g., a twitter post vs a government issued report.
Finally, student essays may also enable researchers to assess students’ narrative competence. As an example, student responses may reflect their awareness that the use of a certain metaphor in a text they consulted influenced their reasoning and decision-making in a certain way (e.g., legacy admissions as a new form of segregation).
One could argue that this assignment could well have been taken from pre-web days. This is certainly true; even in the time before the Internet, there has always been conflicting information and sources that were more enticing, less complex, or simply – even if we may not have used this term at the time – “sexy.”
In the Internet age, however, the amount of such competing information has grown immensely; and so have the media, genres and formats in which such information is available. For instance, students may follow not the general – and very complex – discussion of legacy admission and institutional roles. Instead, they might be drawn to the heavily publicized scandal which surrounded fashion model Olivia Jade Giannulli when her parents’ bribing of institutions in favor of their daughter’s admission came to light. Students may follow not the New York Times coverage of this scandal, but the site “Red Table Talk” (Does the College Admission Scandal Differ From Legacy Admission? — Revamp Education). The likelihood of selecting a site such as this one over others depends on two factors: First, there is a hook to this story – as a fashion icon and influencer, Olivia Jade will be known to students and may be “liked” by many of them. Second, a YouTube clip seems infinitely less dry and much more “consumable” than a lengthy print article.
To conclude, performance tasks may enable researchers to study empirically to what extent students are engaging critically with the material they are surrounded by on the Internet. Rather than simply condemning the Internet as a gateway to false ideas, fake news and misconceptions, researchers and educators may thus take a more pragmatic and constructive approach. They may even integrate the Internet into their tasks, and simulate the environment that students are surrounded by and which they draw on for learning and forming their opinions.
Through such performance tasks and by sharing the results with their students, educators can ultimately guide students to use the Internet in a different and—we hope—more productive way.
Today, the idea that universities not only need to educate students for their future professional positions; equally important is their role as critical thinkers and responsible citizens. Performance tasks such as the one we have described here, and teaching concepts based thereon, may be one step in this direction.
© 2022 Mita Banerjee & Olga Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia
A comment from Howard:
We are grateful to Mita Bannerjee and Olga Zlattin-Troitschanskaia for this stimulating set of blogs. It has always been important to determine—and to document—how students’ thinking is affected by higher education. This challenge has been exacerbated by the vast amount of information with which students are now bombarded. Not only does the task that the authors have constructed provide an appealing measure of students’ Higher Education Capital. Over the long run, with various textual variations, this intervention can help educators understand how students apprehend various kinds of information presented on the web (and in other digital formats); and this determination can help educators craft more effective educational materials and offer guidelines that can help students navigate the many spaces that convey information.