Overview
****PLEASE DO NOT USE GENERATIVE AI SOFTWARE. IT IS CHECKED THOROUGHLY****
ASSIGNMENT: Please respond to the classmate's discussion post pertaining to this scenario.
Imagine the following scenario:
You have been asked by the president of UNG to measure how much students are learning in their classes. Two alternative ways of doing this have been proposed:
- Use GPA data on all students to track if students are learning.
- Use income after graduation for students who have signed up for the alumni association
Melody Heu's Post:
When thinking about how to measure how much UNG students are learning, both GPA and post-graduation income have strengths and weaknesses. GPA is widely used in higher education because it provides a consistent and standardized way to track student performance across classes. From a reliability standpoint, GPA is strong because it is measured the same way for all students and can be replicated over multiple semesters. However, validity is more complicated. Validity means that the measure actually captures the concept of “learning.” GPA may not fully reflect learning because it can be influenced by factors like grade inflation, differences in grading standards across departments, or even a student’s ability to manage coursework rather than their mastery of knowledge.
On the other hand, income after graduation seems like a practical measure since it connects education to career outcomes. However, income is not necessarily a valid measure of student learning. Many external factors such as the job market, networking opportunities, or family resources affect income, making it a poor reflection of what students learned in the classroom. It is also less reliable since it depends on self-reporting and only includes students who join the alumni association.
Overall, GPA is more reliable but not fully valid, while income is neither reliable nor valid as a stand-alone measure of learning. The best approach might involve combining multiple measures to better capture both reliability and validity.