Claims

Quantitative skills were explicitly addressed by only three of the seven reviewed frameworks

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Only three of the seven reviewed frameworks (LEAP, the Lumina DQP, and USDOL-ETA) explicitly mentioned a quantitative domain, leading the authors to exclude quantitative skills from the critical domains. → Markle 2013

Evidence

Markle 2013

Markle, R., Brenneman, M., Jackson, T., Burrus, J., & Robbins, S. (2013). Synthesizing Frameworks of Higher Education Student Learning Outcomes. ETS Research Report Series, ETS RR-13-22. http://search.ets.org/researcher

q2 · i? · review · r2

Document review finding of the seven-framework synthesis: "Only three of the seven frameworks that we reviewed" named a quantitative domain, and even then quantitative skills appeared embedded within communication and critical thinking outcomes rather than as a standalone domain.

"Only three of the seven frameworks that we reviewed— LEAP, the Lumina DQP, and USDOL-ETA—included explicit mention of any quantitative domain."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id quantitative-skills-absent-most-frameworks
title Quantitative skills were explicitly addressed by only three of the seven reviewed frameworks
description Quantitative skills were explicitly addressed by only three of the seven reviewed frameworks
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2013
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-16
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — markle-2013

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.