ments, or methods?”, and “Did coursework emphasize applying theories or concepts to new

situations?”

Since these data are recorded on ordinal scales, a two sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was

used to analyze differences in the responses of the two groups. The test statistic for the two sam-

ple Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is D, the maximum absolute difference between the cumulative

relative frequencies of distributions of responses within categories in two groups. Significance is

determined by an approximation of the sampling distribution of D using the chi-square distribu-

tion (Blalock 1970). I have reported both statistics for each question, comparing results from the

two *Reacting* classes. All forms of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test have relatively low power.

Given that the survey used has not been validated independently and that there are substantial

differences in the number of cases in the two groups, this is probably desirable.

(Table 1 about here)

Table 1 reports comparisons of responses from students in the *Reacting* courses and aggre-

gate readings for the same questions for all other Cornerstone seminars. As can be seen the re-

sults are variable between the two *Reacting *classes. Both classes show strong evidence of active

learning among the *Reacting *students. Significant differences between *Reacting* and conven-

tional seminars can be found for six of the eight comparisons in the study for this hypothesis. Re-

sults are especially strong for the Fall 2007 class; all four questions show significant differences.

The other two hypotheses show more variable results. For both hypothesized relationships, there

are significant readings for most questions for the first *Reacting *class, but not the second. This is

a puzzling result. It is notable that for the questions reflecting critical thinking the proportion of

students answering in the more positive categories (“Often”, “Very Often”, “Quite a bit”, and

13