its due tomorrow 24th by 11 am ,,, >>>>>> Argumentative Essay<<<<

| FALL 2011 JOURNAL OF COLLEGE ADMISSION18 W W W. N A C A C N E T. O R G

Recasting Non-Cognitive Factors in College Readiness as What They Truly Are: Non-Academic Factors

by Amanda Sommerfeld

Against the backdrop of traditional measures of college readiness (i.e., high school GPA, standardized test scores, and high school rank), the consideration of “non-cognitive” factors marked a significant departure when they were first discussed as integral aspects of college success. Used to refer to any characteristic, ability or disposition that was theorized to af- fect college success or retention, the term “non-cognitive” became a kind of a catchall for any variables beyond those “cognitive” or “intellectual” variables listed above. However, the term “non-cognitive” is now and has always been a misnomer, used to refer to a vast array of constructs, many of which reflect cognitive process.

Now, this could be considered simply a semantic issue; “non-

cognitive,” “dispositional” or “non-academic,” what difference does

it make if there is shared understanding of what the term refers to?

The problem is that there isn’t shared understanding and as a result

this essential area of study has been compromised by critiques and

misunderstandings, causing not only confusion about how these

factors affect college readiness, but also general skepticism about

their utility in predicting college success. It seems, then, that for

more transparent discourses to take place about the multifaceted

nature of college readiness, this crucial area of research must

be recast, enhancing the clarity of the field in order to provide a

linguistic grounding for future research. With this in mind, as

a preliminary step the author proposes that “non-cognitive” be

replaced with the more appropriate “non-academic” term, thereby

elucidating the true distinction that researchers are making between

various contributing factors to college preparation and success.

Why Do “Non-Cognitive” Factors Matter?

The introduction of “non-cognitive” factors into college readiness

discussions grew out of necessity, prompted by decades of disparity

between the rates of college acceptance, attendance and completion

by non-traditional college students (i.e., students of color, first-

generation college students, older students, students with special

learning needs, etc.) in comparison to the more traditional college-

going population (i.e., white, middle to upper-middle class men).

These disparities were quickly attributed to higher education’s

reliance on cognitive factors (i.e., standardized test scores, high

school rank, high school GPA) as the basis of college admission

that, though shown to be effective in identifying students likely to

succeed in higher education (e.g., Bentekoe 1992, Bridgeman,

McCamley-Jenkins and Ervin 2000, Kuncel et al. 2005, Kuncel,

Hezlett and Ones 2001, Mouw and Khanna 1993, Noble 1991)

were criticized for their inutility across more diverse student groups.

In particular, the use of traditional college admission criteria as

the sole grounds for college access has been criticized for two

reasons: first, because traditional measures of college admission

are ineffective identifiers of students at risk of attrition (Sedlacek

FALL 2011 JOURNAL OF COLLEGE ADMISSION | 19W W W. N A C A C N E T. O R G

about a field. Based on these factors, he developed the Non-

Cognitive Questionnaire (NCQ), which has been used in scores of

studies since its development in 1976 (Sedlacek and Brooks 1976).

An equally compelling, though less-employed approach uses the

work of Owens and colleagues (e.g., Mumford and Owens 1987)

who promote the use of biodata in predicting student outcomes

such as overall achievement, disciplinary actions, college GPA,

and course withdrawals. The “non-cognitive” factors they propose

include: knowledge and mastery of general principles (Knowledge);

continuous learning, and intellectual interest and curiosity

(Learning); artistic and cultural appreciation (Artistic); appreciation

for diversity (Diversity); leadership (Leadership); interpersonal skills

(Interpersonal); social responsibility and citizenship (Responsibility);

physical and psychological health (Health); career orientation

(Career); adaptability and life skills (Adapt); perseverance

(Persevere); and ethics and integrity (Ethics).

However, not all research on non-cognitive factors in college success

is grounded in an overarching theory. In fact, most studies explore

the utility of a single variable or cluster of variables in predicting out-

comes, resulting in a seemingly limitless list of constructs that have

fallen under the “non-cognitive” umbrella, including metacognitive

skills (e.g., Credé and Kuncel 2008, Zeegers 2001), study attitudes

(e.g., Zimmerman, et al. 1977), study motivation (e.g., Melancon

2002), academic and social integration (e.g., Milem and Berger

1997, Tinto 1993); college knowledge (Conley 2005); personality

1993); and second because they tend to lack predictive validity

for assessing non-traditional college students’ readiness for college,

oftentimes either resulting in a number of false negatives or

overpredicting performance (Young and Koplow 1997). For example,

although traditional admission criteria have been routinely criticized

for underestimating the college performance of non-traditional

students, other studies have identified the tendency for “highly

qualified” non-traditional students (e.g., students of color who

score well on SATs and have high GPAs from high-quality schools) to

oftentimes stumble academically in the face of unwelcoming college

environments (c.f., Linn 1990, Young 1993).

Considering “non-cognitive” factors in assessments of college

readiness was, therefore, seen as a way to improve the accuracy

of selection criteria, casting light on students’ abilities to navigate

the multiple demands of the college environment so that they may

have been better able to persist to graduation. In fact, research has

consistently supported this theory, with dozens of studies across

multiple populations demonstrating that the validity of college

success predictions can be improved by including non-cognitive

factors, such as commitment to school (Tinto 1993), long-term-

goal setting (Young and Sowa 1992) and social support (Lotkowski,

Robbins and Noeth 2004), just to name a few.

What Are “Non-Cognitive” Factors?

When we’re referring to “non-cognitive” factors, what exactly de-

fines them? The answer, albeit troubling, is “It depends;” it depends

Considering “non-cognitive” factors in assessments of college readiness was, therefore, seen as a way to improve the accuracy of selection criteria, casting light on students’ abilities to navigate the multiple demands of the college environment so that they may have been better able to persist to graduation.

on who conducts the research and whether they’re basing their work

on an established theory or exploring a new variable of interest.

For example, one of the most prolific researchers in the field of

college readiness is William Sedlacek, who theorized that there

are eight essential non-cognitive components of college readiness:

positive self-concept regarding academics; realistic self-appraisal;

understanding/dealing with racism; long-term goal setting; having

an available support person; demonstrated experience and success

with leadership; community service; and knowledge acquired in/

(e.g., Ridgell and Lounsbury 2004), student involvement (e.g., Astin

1993); university actions (e.g., Pascarella, Terenzini and Wolf 1986);

problem-solving skills (e.g., Le, et al. 2005), and self-efficacy, effort

regulation, and outcome expectations (e.g., Myers 2004).

Are They Really “Not Cognitive”?

As the above section details, clearly a great deal of variability exists

in the constructs identified as “non-cognitive,” but as the list is

considered, the appropriateness of their categorization as “non-

cognitive” becomes dubious.

| FALL 2011 JOURNAL OF COLLEGE ADMISSION20 W W W. N A C A C N E T. O R G

From the Latin cognoscere, which means "to know" or "to recognize,"

cognition is defined as, “The mental process of knowing, including

aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.”

(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2000).

As such, cognitive processes refer to how people process information, in-

cluding how they perceive, learn and consider new facts or experiences.

Now, certainly there are some constructs included under the um-

brella of “non-cognitive” factors that truly appear to fall outside its

definition: constructs such as personality, having an available sup-

port person, and university actions. Aside from this short list, the

majority of the remaining constructs are undeniably dependent on

cognitive processes.

For example, the ability to set long-term goals is one construct that

has received a great deal of support as an essential characteris-

tic of successful college students (e.g., Mischel and Ayduk 2004).

This construct, which is a direct manifestation of human executive

functioning abilities seated in the prefrontal cortex, must certainly

be considered a cognitive process; not only does it rely on an estab-

lished awareness of consequences, but also requires the capacity

to perceive how actions affect outcomes, and the ability to choose

to delay immediate gratification in favor of greater benefits in the

long run.

Similarly, constructs such as adaptability, understanding and deal-

ing with racism and problem-solving skills all require students to be

able to analyze a situation, identify the relevant factors, and make

choices based on reasoned logic rather than initial reactions—all

of which fall under the purview of cognitive processes. Given this,

the term “non-cognitive” hardly seems the appropriate choice for

capturing this highly variable domain of inquiry, as it is not only

phenomenologically incorrect, but unnecessarily vague as well.

Furthermore, by mislabeling these factors as “non-cognitive” schol-

ars have succeeded in compromising the application of their own

work, contributing to the confusion about what makes a student

ready for college and undermining possible avenues of intervention.

Implications of Definitional Vagueness

Since their initial introduction, research on the “non-cognitive”

factors in college readiness and success has steadily grown, with

associated implications for college programming and resource al-

location. For example, a 2000 article in the Chronicle of Higher

Education about the Gates Millennium Scholars Program, a schol-

arship program for minority youth, proclaimed that “The $1-billion

scholarship program—the largest in higher education—amounts to

an unprecedented, large-scale experiment” because of its reliance

on “non-cognitive” variables such as “community service, demon-

strable leadership skills, the ability to cope with racism, and other

hard-to-quantify characteristics” rather than traditional college ad-

mission criteria (Pulley 2000, A41).

That a scholarship program with this many resources and of this

caliber would choose to base its decisions on “non-cognitive”

characteristics is evidence of the scope and caliber of research on

the topic, with publications numbering in the hundreds (Thomas,

Kuncel and Credé 2007). However, despite the prolific research and

the fact that “non-cognitive” factors have begun being integrated

into college admission decisions at institutions such as Louisiana

State University Medical School (LA), North Carolina State

University (NC), and Muhlenberg College (PA) (Sedlacek 2004),

critiques persist, particularly because of the varying amounts of

support that different “non-cognitive” constructs have garnered,

and the widely disparate predictive validity of those constructs

(Thomas, et al. 2007).

For example, in a study that examined the validity of non-cognitive

factors in predicting the academic performance of African-American

college students, Nasim and colleagues (2005) found that predic-

tors varied in their utility across contexts. So whereas the academic

performance of African-American students attending a predomi-

nantly white institution was associated with whether they had an

academic support person available, their capacity to understand

and deal with racism, and their espousal of humanist attitudes, the

achievement of African-American students attending Historically

Black Colleges or Universities was only influenced by their degree of

positive academic self-concept.

The authors of the Noncognitive Questionnaire, the measure most

commonly used to assess “non-cognitive” factors in the research

literature, similarly found differences in the predictive validity of

constructs across groups. In their initial construct validation study,

they found that of the six non-cognitive factors that were supported

From the Latin cognoscere, which means "to know" or "to recognize,"

cognition is defined as, “The mental process of knowing, including aspects

such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.”

FALL 2011 JOURNAL OF COLLEGE ADMISSION | 21W W W. N A C A C N E T. O R G

by their factor analysis (i.e., leadership, recognizing racism, long-term

goal orientation, realistic self-appraisal, support for college plans, and

self-confidence), only self-confidence, long-term goal orientation and

realistic self-appraisal were predictive of white students’ first semester

GPA, and only positive self-concept and realistic self-appraisal were

predictive of GPA in African-American students.

Findings like those outlined above have been replicated in a variety

of others studies (e.g., Ancis and Sedlacek 1997, Fuertes, Sed-

lacek and Liu 1994), indicating differential predictive validity of

“non-cognitive” constructs. Despite this, scholars persist in writ-

ing broadly of the importance of “non-cognitive” factors in college

readiness. As a result, claims that “non-cognitive” factors, overall,

are essential for college readiness have been challenged, accompa-

nied by calls for more psychometrically sound measures and greater

definitional clarity on the whole.

In response to these critiques, the author argues for a semantic

switch—a movement away from the broad, undefined category of

“non-cognitive” to nomenclature that allows for greater conceptual

clarity. By categorizing important factors of college readiness as

“academic” v. “non-academic,” a more apparent distinction can be

made between that which is based on formal education (i.e., grades,

subject matter knowledge, etc.) and those additional factors that af-

fect a student’s ability to adapt to and meet the varying demands of

a college environment. The category of “non-academic” could then

be broken down into appropriate subgroups, such as dispositions,

executive functioning abilities, habits of mind, external resources,

and college knowledge (see Table 1), that more specifically capture

the different domains of integral variables.

Changing the Language: Implications of the Semantic Switch on Research and Interventions

Even if it may seem a trivial adjustment, making the linguistic

switch from “non-cognitive” to “non-academic” signals a deeper,

meaningful change in the area of college readiness. Ever since factors

outside of GPA and standardized test scores were initially considered

as potentially meaningful in the collegiate experiences of students,

Factor Definition examples

Academic Factors Factors explicitly targeted in formal education. Subject matter knowledge, high school grades, standardized test scores, etc.

Non-Academic Factors

Dispositions Internal characteristics that distinguish a person’s predominant outlook or characteristic attitude.

Personality (Ridgell and Lounsbury 2004) Temperament Values Attitudes (Owens et al. 1976)

Habits of Mind “Habits of thought and action that help people manage uncertain or challenging situations… [supporting] thoughtful and intelligent action” (Costa and Kallick 2000, 4).

Metacognitive skills (Zeegers 2001) Creative thinking (Owens 1976) Study attitudes (Zimmerman, et al. 1977) Outcome expectations (Myers 2004) Intellectual curiosity (Owens 1976) Appreciation for diversity (Sedlacek 1993) Leadership (Owens 1976) Positive self-concept (Sedlacek 1993)

Executive Functioning Abilities

Foundational skills that allow individuals to effectively navigate daily tasks, including the ability to “orient, plan, program responses, and verify and modify performances” (Denckla 1996, 263).

Study habits Reasoning (Le, et al. 2005) Long-term goal setting (Sedlacek 1993) Realistic self-appraisal (Sedlacek 1993) Decision making Self-control (Myers 2004) Goal commitment

External Resources External factors that the individual may be able to access to support college readiness/success.

University fit (Nasim, et al. 2005) Financial stability Family beliefs about education Institution intervention (Pascarella, et al. 1986) Support person (Sedlacek 1993)

College Knowledge Explicit and implicit knowledge required for college success; essentially knowing how to “do” college.

Knowledge of college requirements, placement test policies, and tuition costs (Conley 2005) Understanding of the structure of college Ability to recognize the systemic requirements and norms

Table 1: Factors in College Readiness and Success

| FALL 2011 JOURNAL OF COLLEGE ADMISSION22 W W W. N A C A C N E T. O R G

Ancis, J. R., and Sedlacek,W. E. (1997). Pre- dicting the academic achievement of female students using the SAT and noncognitive variables. College and Universit y, 72, 2-8.

Astin. A. W (1993). What matters in college" Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bontekoe, J. (1992). The ACT as a predic- tor of college success at Trinity Christian College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 355 258).

Bridgeman, B., McCamley-Jenkins, L., and Ervin, N. (2000). Predictions of freshman grade point average from the revised and recentered SAT I: Reasoning Test (College Board Rep. No. 2000-1). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Conley, D. (2005). College knowledge: What it takes students to succeed and what we can do to get them ready. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Crede´, M., and Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pil- lar supporting collegiate academic per- formance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 425–453.

Fuertes, J. N., Sedlacek, W. E., and Liu, W. M. (1994). Using the SAT and noncogni- tive variables to predict the grades and retention of Asian-American university students. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 27, 74-84.

Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., Thomas, L. L., Seiler, S. N., Klieger, D. M., and Woo, S. E. (2005).A meta-analysis of the Pharmacy College Admission Test (PCAT) and grade predictors of pharmacy student success. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Educa- tion, 69, 339-347.

Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., and Ones, D. S. (2001). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Re- cord Examinations: Implications for gradu- ate student selection and performance. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 162-181.

Le, H., Casillas, A., Robbins, S. B., and Langley, R. (2005). Motivational and skills, social, and self-management predictors of college outcomes: Constructing the Stu- dent Readiness Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 482-508.

Lotkowski, V.A., Robbins, S.B., and No- eth, R.J. (2004). The role of academic and non-academic factors in improving college retention: ACT policy report.

Linn, R.L. (1990). Hispanics’ education and background: Predictors of college achieve- ment. New York: College Entrance Exami- nation Board.

Melancon, J. G. (2002). Reliability, struc- ture, and correlates of Learning and Study Strategies Inventory scores. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 1020–1027.

Milem, J. F., and Berger, J. B. (1997). A modified model of college student persis- tence: Exploring the relationship between Astin's theory of involvement and Tinto's theory of student departure. Journal of Col- lege Student Development, 38, 387-400.

Mischel,W., and Ayduk, O. (2004). Willpower in a cognitive-affective processing system: The dynamics of delay of gratification. In R. F. Baumeister and K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and ap- plications (pp. 99-129). New York: Guilford.

Mouw, J., and Khanna, R. (1993). Predic- tion of academic success: A review of the literature and some recommendations. College Student Journal. 27, 328-336.

Mumford, M. D., and Owens, W. A. (1987). Methodology review: Principles, proce- dures, and findings in the application of background data measures. Applied Psy- chological Measurement, 11, 1–31.

Myers, D. G. (2004). Psychology (rev. ed.). New York: Worth.

Nasim, A., Roberts, A., Harrell, J.P., and Young, H. (2005). Non-cognitive predic- tors of academic achievement for African Americans across cultural contexts. The Journal of Negro Education, 74(4), 344-358.

Noble, J. P. (1991). Predicting college grades from ACT assessment scores and high school course work and grade infor- mation (Rep. No. ACT-RR-91-3). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED344943)

Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P, and Wolf, L. (1986). Orientation to college and freshman year persistence/withdrawal decisions. Journal of Higher Education, 57, 155-175

Pulley, J.L. (2000, June 23). A $1-billion experiment seeks a new way to identify talented minority students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A41.

Ridgell, S., and Lounsbury, J. W. (2004). Predicting collegiate academic success: General intelligence, “Big Five” personal- ity traits, and work drive. College Student Journal, 38, 607–618.

Sedlacek, W. E. (1993). Employing non- cognitive variables in admissions and retention in higher education. In Achiev- ing diversity: Issues in the recruitment and retention of underrepresented racial/ethnic students in higher education. (pp. 33-39). Alexandria VA: National Association of Col- lege Admission Counselors.

Sedlacek, W.E. (2004). Beyond the Big Test: Noncognitive assessment in higher educa- tion. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Sedlacek, W.E., and Brooks, G.C., Jr. (1976). Racism in American education: A model for change. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (2009) (4th ed). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Thomas, L.L., Kuncel, N.R., and Credé, M. (2007). Noncognitive variables in college admissions: The case of the Non-Cognitive Questionnaire. Educational and Psychologi- cal Measurement, 67, 635-657.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethink- ing the Causes and Cures of Student At- trition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Young, B., and Sowa, C. (1992). Predictors of academic success for Black student athletes. Journal of College Student Devel- opment, 33, 318-324.

Young, J.W. (1993). Grade adjustment methods. Review of Educational Research, 63, 151-165.

Young, J.W. and Koplow, S.L. (1997). The validity of two questionnaires for predict- ing minority students’ college grades. The Journal of General Education, 46(1), 45-55.

Zeegers, P. (2001). Approaches to learning in science: A longitudinal study. British Jour- nal of Educational Psychology, 71, 115–132.

Zimmerman, W. S., Parks, H., Gray, K., and Michael, W. B. (1977). The validity of tradi- tional cognitive measures and of scales of the Study Attitudes and Methods Survey in the prediction of the academic success of Educational Opportunity Program students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 465–470.

REFERENCES

AMANDA SoMMeRFelD, Ph.D. is an assistant clinical faculty member at Boston University (MA). Her current research focuses on examining the role of economic, social and cultural capital in educational advancement and college success for urban youth. She is currently teaching classes in the areas of counseling theory and cross-cultural perspectives.

research on the topic has faced (oftentimes justified) criticisms for

its lack of clarity and rigor, as well as for overgeneralizing its findings.

By virtue of changing the language around the constructs of interest,

researchers can indicate an even greater attention to conceptual

clarity and an intention to pursue continued research on which non-

academic variables impact college success and how they do so.

Furthermore, by delineating a categorization scheme that explicitly

recognizes the variability in non-academic factors, researchers will

be better positioned to inform interventions both within and outside

of schools. For by more carefully delineating the different domains

of non-academic factors, practitioners and educators could be

provided with more explicit recommendations about how particular

non-academic factors affect college preparation and persistence,

and thereby how we might better prepare our students for their

postsecondary school years.