Kenneth M. Cramer

Based on analyses of Maclean’s ranking data pertaining to Canadian universities published over the last 24 years, we present a summary of statistical findings of annual ranking exercises, as well as discussion about their current status and the effects upon student welfare. Some illustrative tables are also presented. Using correlational and cluster analyses, for each year, we have found largely nonsignificant, inconsistent, and uninterpretable relations between rank standings of universities and Maclean’s main measures, as well as between rank standings and the many specific indices used to generate these standings. In our opinion, when assessed in terms of their empirical characteristics, the annual data show generally that this system of ranking is highly limited in terms of its practical or academic value to students. Among other difficulties with the interpretation of ranks, we also discuss the possibility that ranking exercises have unintended, though potentially serious, negative consequences for the intellectual and personal welfare of students.

As in most disciplines, the typical introductory class presents topics to students in a linear fashion, beginning (to use psychology as an example) with the history of the field, research methods, brain and neurons, sensation and perception, and so on. This study examined the impact of topic sequence on student achievement. The same professor taught two different sections of an introductory psychology university course during one semester. One section of the course received lectures in the standard linear order, while the other section received lectures in a nonlinear order, beginning with memory and consciousness, followed by history and research methods. Nonlinear-delivery students scored significantly higher on their midterm for four of the seven assigned chapters and performed better overall for the final examination than did linear-delivery students. Nonlinear-student attrition was also significantly lower (7.1% vs. 16.9%). These findings suggest that presentation of material in a nonlinear order better lends itself to student understanding.

We present a data-based perspective concerning the Maclean’s magazine (November 17, 2003) rankings of Canadian universities, including two cluster analyses and other nonparametric analyses. These data are similar to those in recent university ranking exercises conducted by other magazines, such as U.S. News. In many cases, the cluster procedure showed that universities actually resemble and relate to each other in a manner different from their formal classification and final rank ordering by Maclean’s. Several pitfalls in ranking procedures, related to unreliable relationships among specific indices underlying the final ranks, are outlined. Comparisons are made also with the most recent student satisfaction rankings for 47 Canadian universities, published in November, 2003, by the Toronto Globe and Mail. The latter rankings do not reliably reflect the general results of the Maclean’s data. In their present format, and although they have become increasingly publicized and promoted, it remains difficult for the Maclean’s data to be consistently or empirically useful to students. Ranking exercises have unintended, though increasingly predictable, consequences, which likely bear heavily upon the intellectual and personal well being of students.

We presently introduce the Virtual Lecture Hall (VLH), an instructional computer‐based platform for delivering Microsoft PowerPoint slides threaded with audio clips for later review. There were 839 male and female university students enrolled in an introductory psychology class who had access to review class lectures via the VLH. This tool was made available through the course website following the first midterm. Approximately 20% used the resource, and 18% completed a five‐item survey tapping their perceptions of whether the VLH enhanced learning or increased grades; and whether they wanted the resource in other courses. The total number of student accesses was calculated, as was the total duration (in minutes) that students used the VLH. After accounting for initial midterm test score differences, results showed that students who used the VLH for 100 minutes or more scored, on average, 15% higher in their second midterm. The student perceptions of the VLH were also highly favourable. Directions for future research in resource development and implications for educators are also discussed.

Research reports of consistent gender differences in the selection of musical instruments (i.e. trumpets for boys and flutes for girls). As observed in other domains, social perception research shows comparably negative evaluations of individuals engaged in activities atypical to their gender. The present study investigated college students' evaluations of fictitious male or female musicians playing either a masculine (drum and tuba) or feminine (flute or harp) instrument. Using a semantic differential scale, the 98 students were asked their impressions of each of the four fictitious musicians according to masculine (dominant, leadership, activity), feminine (warm, sensitive, caring), or gender-neutral (adjustment, happiness, success) descriptors. Results showed that female musicians were perceived as more dominant, active, and better leaders than male musicians. Moreover, musicians of feminine instruments were perceived as more caring, warm, sensitive, and better adjusted; but less dominant and prone to leadership than musicians of masculine instruments. Finally, the hypothesised interaction between instrument gender and musician sex was significant. Specifically, males and females were judged equivalently for masculine instruments, but males playing feminine instruments were perceived as less dominant, active, and better leaders than females playing the same instruments. Implications for gender stereotypes and social role theory are discussed, and directions for future research are outlined.