Academic Performance and Success: Rethinking Educational Metrics

Pascal Roubides

doi:10.2478/atd-2026-0010

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Academic Performance and Success: Rethinking Educational Metrics

Acta Educationis Generalis

Volume 16 (2026): Issue 2 (June 2026)

By: Pascal Roubides

Open Access

|Jun 2026

Abstract

Introduction: This article discusses results emanating from a study examining the validity of current measures of academic success in higher education.

Methods: The study uses a quasi-experimental quantitative design to compare outcomes of traditional online College Algebra courses and the same course using a hybrid competency-focused model with a polyparadigm delivery approach.

Results: Preliminary findings showed differences in the proportions of successful course completions based on how “success” was interpreted.

Discussion: These findings imply that conventional performance-based metrics may not adequately represent authentic learning or student academic growth.

Limitations: Limitations include substantial differences in sample sizes being compared and confounding variables related to the course delivery design and implementation, even the actual metrics being measured.

Conclusions: A broader reconceptualization of academic success is necessary, balancing quantitative and qualitative measures to capture the complexity of learning in digital learning environments.

References

Adil, H. M., Ali, S., Sultan, M., Ashiq, M., & Rafiq, M. (2024). Open education resources’ benefits and challenges in the academic world: A systematic review. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 73(3), 274-291.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Agresti, A., & Franklin, C. (2014). Statistics. The Art & Science of Learning from Data. Essex: Pearson Education.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Borghans, L., Golsteyn, B. H., Heckman, J. J., & Humphries, J. E. (2016). What grades and achievement tests measure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(47), 13354-13359.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Brookhart, S. M., Guskey, T. R., Bowers, A. J., McMillan, J. H., Smith, J. K., Smith, L. F., ... & Welsh, M. E. (2016). A century of grading research: Meaning and value in the most common educational measure. Review of educational research, 86(4), 803-848.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Broward College. (2025). Public Information Dashboard. Student Enrollment and Demographics. Retrieved from https://www.broward.edu/about/
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Social Sciences. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cornell University. (2025). Measuring Student Learning. Retrieved from https://teaching.cornell.edu/teaching-resources/assessment-evaluation/measuring-student-learning
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Duckworth, A. L., Weir, D., Tsukayama, E., & Kwok, D. (2012). Who does well in life? Conscientious adults excel in both objective and subjective success. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 356.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Eusea, J., Okwan, P., Belmasrour, R., Patterson, S., & Andrus, S. (2024). Introductory Statistics. LOUIS Pressbooks.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gruppen, L. D., Burkhardt, J. C., Fitzgerald, J. T., Funnell, M., Haftel, H. M., Lypson, M. L., ... & Vasquez, J. A. (2016). Competency‐based education: Programme design and challenges to implementation. Medical Education, 50(5), 532-539.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lambert, S. (2020). Online open education and social justice: Progress for regional, multi-lingual, and female learners. Inclusive Education Is a Right, Right, 21-36.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lopez, C. L. (2002). Assessment of student learning: Challenges and strategies. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(6), 356-367.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Miao, F., Mishra, S., Orr, D., & Janssen, B. (2019). Guidelines on the Development of Open Educational Resources Policies. UNESCO Publishing.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mertens, D. M. (2019). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. Sage Publications.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Norris, D., Baer, L., Leonard, J., Pugliese, L., & Lefrere, P. (2008). Action analytics: Measuring and improving performance that matters in higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(1), 42.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Penn State. (2023). Do we need letter grades? Retrieved from https://sites.psu.edu/mcmcivic.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Raffaghelli, J. E., & Grion, V. (2023). Beyond just metrics: For a renewed approach to assessment in higher education. In Data cultures in higher education: Emergent practices and the challenge ahead (pp. 89-121). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Roubides, P. (2015). Distance learning and the control theory metaphor. Procedia Computer Science, 65, 269-277.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Roubides, P. (2025, October). Measuring Academic Success (Beyond Reasonable Doubt) [Keynote address]. 8^th World Conference on Education & Teaching, Lyon, France.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schneider, J., & Hutt, E. L. (2023). Off the Mark: How Grades, Ratings, and Rankings Undermine Learning (but don’t have to). Harvard University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Scott-Clayton, J. (2013). Information constraints and financial aid policy. In Student financing of higher education (pp. 75-97). Routledge.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walden, P. R. (2020, August). Competency-based education: Purposes and promises. Seminars in Speech and Language, 41(4), 289-297. Thieme Medical Publishers.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wallis, S. (2013). Binomial confidence intervals and contingency tests: Mathematical fundamentals and the evaluation of alternative methods. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 20(3), 178-208.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article