Reasoning about logical propositions and success in science

Students display a number of misconceptions when asked to reason about logical propositions. Rather than being random, these misconceptions are stereotypic, and relate to age, ability, and success in science. The grades in science achieved by tenth-grade general science students from two parochial single-sex schools in Australia correlated with their scores on the Propositional Logic Test. The students' ability level was consistently related to the pattern of errors they committed on that measure. Mean scores were lowest on a subtest of ability to use the biconditional and implication, higher on the disjunction, and highest on the conjunction. Success in science was predicted most strongly by the disjunction and biconditional subtests. Knowledge of the way in which a person reasons about logical propositions provides additional insights into the transformations information is subjected to as it is integrated into mental schemata.     

The digit naming speed test: Its power and incremental validity in identifying children with specific reading disabilities

This paper presents two studies, both of which address the question of whether a test that measures the automaticity with which digits can be named could be useful as part of a diagnostic battery to assess reading disabilities. In the first study, the Digit Naming Speed Test significantly differentiated elementary-school boys who were disabled readers from age-matched boys reading at appropriate grade levels, correctly classifying 83.3% of the children. In the second study, the Digit Naming Speed Test accounted for a significant portion of the word recognition variance of nondisabled readers over and above that portion accounted for by general intelligence as measured by the WISC-R. Taken together, these studies indicate that the Digit Naming Speed Test has the potential to contribute significantly to the diagnostic process.     

College attrition,student use of campus facilities,and a consideration of self-reported personal problems

Five groups of undergraduate students, Dropouts (academic dismissals), Low Stopouts (voluntary leavers with low GPA), Low Persisters (continuing students with low GPA), High Stopouts (voluntary leavers with high GPA), High Persisters (continuing students with high GPA), were compared in terms of their use of various campus facilities and their responses to a checklist of personal problems. The High Stopouts and High Persisters did not differ in use of facilities. However, among the low academic performance students, the Low Persisters made significantly greater use of facilities than the Low Stopouts, who, in turn, made significantly greater use of facilities than Dropouts. These findings, for the most part, did not appear to be related to the self-reported importance of personal problems. It was concluded that among low performance students, the broad use of campus services and facilities can be taken as a measure of student integration in the college community.     

Radicals reflect: The first twenty years of the caucus for a new political science

B. Nelson Ong is Assistant Professor Political Science at the College of New Rochelle, New Rochelle, NY 10805. He is also the Secretary of the National Association of Scholars.     

Salary comparisons: New methods for correcting old fallacies

Institutions of higher education place high priority on ensuring that their faculties are adequately paid. Since gauging the adequacy of compensation is a problem of relative measure, this assessment is usually performed by comparing university-level average salaries for a group of peer institutions. Often the potential distortions caused by differences in the rank mix of the faculty are forestalled by comparing average salaries for each of the four ranks. However, few if any institutions take similar steps to prevent the skewing of averages owing to differences in cost of living, differences in distribution of faculty in academic year and twelve-month appointments, and differences in the configuration of the faculty over disciplines. This paper shows that salary comparisons that do not compensate for these variation in staff mix are seriously flawed. A recommended methodology is demonstrated.