Efficacy of using grade point average to predict students cognitive ability

Abstract

In a typical engineering course, student knowledge is assessed by periodic examination, usually administered as a mid-term exam or final exam. While this provides the instructor with some indication of what students know, it doesn't provide students an opportunity to learn the things they don't know. For courses that serve as prerequisites, students can progress to the next "level" with only having to know 60-70% of the course content. In contrast, in the video gaming world, the player has to achieve a perfect "score" in order to advance to the next level. If they do not achieve a perfect score they get another chance and so progression is often achieved through repeated attempts, especially at the higher, more difficult levels. The gaming, iterative approach was applied to a junior level biomaterials course, where progression was based on cognitive ability. The course was divided into three separate modules; at the end of each module students were asked to complete three tests. The first test for each module consisted of 15 multiple-choice questions. These questions related to the understanding cognitive domain as defined by bloom's taxonomy. Students had to make 100% to progress to the next test, and they were allowed to repeat the test until they made 100%. The second test for each module was comprised of short answer problems that required students to calculate answers. These questions were designed to test the students' ability to apply their knowledge. Students that scored >90% were permitted to take the third test. Again, if they made less than 90% the test could be repeated. The third test consisted of poorly defined questions, where students were required to analyze raw data, interpret their results, apply them to the problem and provide a justification. This assessed analyzing and evaluating cognitive abilities. The structure of this course prompted the following research questions to be asked: (i) Does student GPA correlate with the number of attempts a students needs to achieve 100% on each test? (ii) Do students with a lower GPA (i.e.<3.0) have the ability to master higher cognitive levels? Data collected over two semesters did not show any correlation between student GPA and number of attempts to get 100% on tests. This finding was consistent across all different cognitive levels. Student GPA was also not a good predictor of cognitive ability, as students with lower GPAs were equally able to master application of knowledge as those with higher GPAs. Very few students were able to master evaluation of data and several students with high GPAs failed to make 100% on this test. In conclusion, GPA is not a good indicator of cognitive ability and even students with a low GPA have the potential to learn fundamental knowledge and apply their knowledge to solve structured problems. A high GPA does not indicate an ability to function at the analytical or evaluation cognitive level.