GB2540934A - Progress and Attainment Assessment System and Method - Google Patents
Progress and Attainment Assessment System and Method Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- GB2540934A GB2540934A GB1513350.7A GB201513350A GB2540934A GB 2540934 A GB2540934 A GB 2540934A GB 201513350 A GB201513350 A GB 201513350A GB 2540934 A GB2540934 A GB 2540934A
- Authority
- GB
- United Kingdom
- Prior art keywords
- grade
- grades
- normalised
- value
- monitored
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Withdrawn
Links
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 43
- 238000006243 chemical reaction Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 27
- 238000011161 development Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 18
- 210000001747 pupil Anatomy 0.000 claims description 65
- 230000006870 function Effects 0.000 claims description 16
- 239000003086 colorant Substances 0.000 claims description 10
- 238000004590 computer program Methods 0.000 claims description 4
- 230000001419 dependent effect Effects 0.000 claims description 4
- 238000004519 manufacturing process Methods 0.000 claims description 4
- 239000000470 constituent Substances 0.000 claims description 3
- 238000010606 normalization Methods 0.000 claims description 3
- 239000000654 additive Substances 0.000 claims description 2
- 230000000996 additive effect Effects 0.000 claims description 2
- 230000000007 visual effect Effects 0.000 claims description 2
- SGPGESCZOCHFCL-UHFFFAOYSA-N Tilisolol hydrochloride Chemical compound [Cl-].C1=CC=C2C(=O)N(C)C=C(OCC(O)C[NH2+]C(C)(C)C)C2=C1 SGPGESCZOCHFCL-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims 7
- 125000002059 L-arginyl group Chemical group O=C([*])[C@](N([H])[H])([H])C([H])([H])C([H])([H])C([H])([H])N([H])C(=N[H])N([H])[H] 0.000 claims 1
- 238000012360 testing method Methods 0.000 abstract description 10
- 230000009466 transformation Effects 0.000 description 10
- 230000008859 change Effects 0.000 description 6
- 230000007935 neutral effect Effects 0.000 description 6
- 230000006866 deterioration Effects 0.000 description 5
- 238000013507 mapping Methods 0.000 description 5
- 230000008901 benefit Effects 0.000 description 4
- 238000004364 calculation method Methods 0.000 description 3
- 230000006872 improvement Effects 0.000 description 3
- 230000002250 progressing effect Effects 0.000 description 3
- 238000004040 coloring Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000002955 isolation Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000008569 process Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000000844 transformation Methods 0.000 description 2
- 102100040149 Adenylyl-sulfate kinase Human genes 0.000 description 1
- 235000000177 Indigofera tinctoria Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 230000009471 action Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000002776 aggregation Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000004220 aggregation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000013459 approach Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000009286 beneficial effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000000052 comparative effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 235000021438 curry Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- XEYBRNLFEZDVAW-ARSRFYASSA-N dinoprostone Chemical compound CCCCC[C@H](O)\C=C\[C@H]1[C@H](O)CC(=O)[C@@H]1C\C=C/CCCC(O)=O XEYBRNLFEZDVAW-ARSRFYASSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 230000009977 dual effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000000694 effects Effects 0.000 description 1
- 229940097275 indigo Drugs 0.000 description 1
- COHYTHOBJLSHDF-UHFFFAOYSA-N indigo powder Natural products N1C2=CC=CC=C2C(=O)C1=C1C(=O)C2=CC=CC=C2N1 COHYTHOBJLSHDF-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 230000000737 periodic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000002085 persistent effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000012026 site acceptance test Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000036962 time dependent Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000001131 transforming effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000012800 visualization Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000003442 weekly effect Effects 0.000 description 1
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q50/00—Information and communication technology [ICT] specially adapted for implementation of business processes of specific business sectors, e.g. utilities or tourism
- G06Q50/10—Services
- G06Q50/20—Education
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q99/00—Subject matter not provided for in other groups of this subclass
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G09—EDUCATION; CRYPTOGRAPHY; DISPLAY; ADVERTISING; SEALS
- G09B—EDUCATIONAL OR DEMONSTRATION APPLIANCES; APPLIANCES FOR TEACHING, OR COMMUNICATING WITH, THE BLIND, DEAF OR MUTE; MODELS; PLANETARIA; GLOBES; MAPS; DIAGRAMS
- G09B7/00—Electrically-operated teaching apparatus or devices working with questions and answers
Landscapes
- Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
- General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Educational Technology (AREA)
- Educational Administration (AREA)
- Economics (AREA)
- General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
- Marketing (AREA)
- Primary Health Care (AREA)
- Strategic Management (AREA)
- Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)
Abstract
A method for comparing a characteristic of a set of developing entities comprises; following an assessment of a characteristic at a particular development stage, recording a discrete grade of each entity; converting each grade to a normalised value by means of a conversion function; and calculating an average of the normalised values. This average value is then compared to a normalised value of an acceptable grade for that development stage, resulting in a difference value being evaluated and outputted. Alternatively, the average value is compared to the average of normalised values corresponding to grades of the same set of entities at a second later development stage, leading to another difference value being evaluated and outputted. In particular, the entities may be students, where the characteristic is ability in an academic subject and the grades are those achieved in a subject after a test or an exam. The normalised values might be in a universal scale composed of numerical identifiers. This method compares the attainment or progress of a group of students against an acceptable level or against an earlier level achieved by the same students, and the normalised values allow comparison even if different grading systems are used.
Description
ElgldMtheJnventlon ftie present invention relates to a progress and attainment assessment system, and a meiiod for assessing propess and attainment of, msaniaaned entities hawing cme or more inherertt ehameteristie properties which can be not on^ assessed, m^aso^ or ofeerwise determined iniermitten% or peripdicaiiy, |Mt wiiri can ie iiiaepced ly ope or rpore different third party entities, and which are at least capable of some ^riation over time, whether as a result of third party entity influence or not, and in a positive or negative manner. More specifically, the invention relates to an academic pmgress assessment system and method in which the monitofed entities are human IndivIdPats, for examples pupils or students, for whom the charaeteritlc property of academic attainment is regularly, iritermlttentiy and in most cases peric^ieaiy, assessed or rtreasored in some way and recorded so lli: a historic record far each pupil or student exists, and from which it is thus intrinsically possible to derive some measure of the aeademie j^o^ess for that or those individuals over time.
It should be mentioned that althou|h the following description is provided with almost exclusive reference to academia, and particularly tie academic systems flrmeliy and currently in place within the United Kingdom, the invention should not be regarded as being sp l|fnlt|d. Indeed, it wil|ba clear from the fQfe|bing that the system and method of the present invention may have application in other technological fields where I is desirable to visualise how and to what extent a particular timeKvaif ing characteristic or property of an erilty is changing, and whether such change can |e attributed to one or more third-party entities exerting some influence over that entity for a relevant time period.
Throughout the world, educational authorities of various sorts employ a variety of grading systems to assess how students are being supported (or not) by their teachers and wider sehpQl systems. Such grading systems form the bedrock of assessment in schools^ and regardless of whether the particular grades are determined through formal testing conducted according to a national academic structure or curriculum, or whether they are more subjectively assessed and awarded, for example through teacher judgement, these gradingsystems are increasingly relied upon by (i) parents, who use their child's grades as an Immediate measure of how their children are faring, (li) governmental education departments, who use the grades as some measure of the performance of teachers and schools generally, and which can therefore provide some degree of accountability for those teachers and schools.
The skilled reader will understand that education in general is a terrifically complex, not to mention highly political, proposition and the education systems and curricula within some nations have Inevitably proliferated and become confusing as a resyit. For example, within the UK, there are currently in operation a variety of grading systems depending upon a pupil’s age or subject, the particular type of academic Institution they attend, and sometimes even the district, region or county in which that academic institution is located. There have of course been innumerable attempts to standardise, normalise and rationalise these grading systems, but the complex nature of the UK education system, not to mention the innumerable political changes there have been to It, has made such standardisation very difficult. There Is additionally a natural reluctance of some educational establishments to change their current, tried and tested, grading system to one with which they are unfamiliar and which will necessarily Involve steep learning curves on the part of the teachers. At the date hereof, for example, there are currently in use a plethora of different academic grading systems throughout the United Kingdom, and this complex picture Is further fragmented by the fact that the individual countries within the union, and the regions within them, ail possess different education authorities which may impose different requirements as far as reporting and standards are concerned.
The end result of such a complex education framework is that the grades awarded within and according to such grading systems are largely incomparable, at least not in any meaningful sense, to a grade awarded In a different system, not least because a partici. lar grade awarded in one system will (usually) be representative of a different level of academic attainment to one awarded in ariother system, it Is thus often impossible to calcylate and thus visualise any meaningful academic, attainment or progress comparison between ' different regions (or educational authorities established therefor) within a single countiy (or indeed across country borders) “ specific schools, and the teachers wdthin them, and sometimes even " classes of pupils within schools, or sets of pupils within a particular age group (or having any other common attribute, e.g. ethnicity, gender, sporting prowess, family background etc.).
For the purposes of clarity and comprehension hereof, a di,stinction must be made between attainment and progress. Academic grading systems generally give a measure of the attainment of a child at a specific point in time. However, in schools with poor or otherwise underprivileged catchment areas - or conversely, with prestigious entry requirements - pure attainment figures do not necessarily reflect how well the school is performing In terms of Improving their pupils. Although in the latter category, this may be of somewhat less importance to prospective entrants than entiy itself, in the former category It is often vitally important. In either category, it is the difference in attainment over time that is often regarded as a more important measure ~ known in most education systems simply as progress. Although most schoob maintain their own attainment history for all their pupils, such attainment histories always conform to a particular grading system, and while It may be possible to show progress (or deterioration) using that particular attainment history. It is impossible to compare it against an attainment history recorded using a different grading system.
As regards particular grading systems, any single grading system can be thought of as either an absolute grading system, or a relative grading system. Absolute grading systems provide some exact or approximate measure of a pupil’s ability in a particular academic subject, and without any reference to the performance of that pupil’s peer group in the same subject at the same time. For example, any pupil, regardless of age, may achieve or obtain a “level 3" in a "teacher assessment" type test, e.g. a weekly class maths test. This grade provides no indication whatsoever as to that pupil's progress In the subject (e.g. whether that mark represents any improvement or deterioration as compared with that pupil's earlier attainments), nor does the grade provide any Indication as to whether that pupil is weak or strong in mathematics either for hfs age, or as compared with peers, classmates or others pupils in the same year. The grade in isolation, is a pure attainment measure, and as such, m certain instances, meaningless.
Examples of absolute grading systems Include UK National Curriculum levels of academic attainment commonly awarded to a pupil throughout the year by teachers in all the different subjects being studied by the pupil (e,g. 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, etc).
By contrast, the grades or attainments levels of relative grading systems reflect the ability of the student relative to either their age, their peer group or some nationally set, required or expected average. Examples of relative grading systems include the common A-F grades given for UK General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examinations (example grades including A*, A4-, A, A-, B-f etc.), Diplomas (marked with very simple grades of Pass, Merit, Distinction), the ‘standardised scores’ grading system more recently Introduced in the UK (example grades include 100 (expected performance), <100 (under-achieving), and >100 (over-achieving)}, and ‘colouring' or palette-based grading systems (for which grades are expressed as colours ranging from Red for poor performance through Orange, Yellow, Green (for expected or satisfactory performance), Blue and Purple, for exceptional performance).
As mentioned, an absolute grade in isolation, that is without any context of time or peer group performance, is only representative of pure attainment, and of limited use practically. For example, a 4 yr old child attaining a grade 4b In a mathematics test would be an Incredible achievement, whereas for a 16 year old such a grade might represent an unacceptably weak achievement. Such absolute grades are problematical as far as communicating with the parents of the child Is concerned when the parents are typically only concerned with how well their children are doing for their age, and/or within their peer group (i.e. class or year group), and if they are progressing or regressing. However, absolute grading systems do offer far more granularity of assessment, part.icularly If attainment is measured In some form of points score, for example marks out of 100. it should also be mentioned that the difference between two forms of grading system Is not well uriderstood, even in educational establishments and government departments.
It is thus a further object of the present Invention to provide a system and method for assessing not only attainment but also progress which provides an imniediatsly comprehensible visual indication of progress and possibly also attainment, or any other monitored characteristic which Is both prone to variation over time, and which may change as a result of being subjected to influence exerted by a third party In an occasional, periodic, and/or persistent manner.
According to the present invention there is provided a system for producing a normalised output of a characteristic of a monitored and developing entity, said characteristic being intermittently assessed and successively ascribed a discrete grade which is recorded in said system together with a timestamp indicative of the date when said assessment occurred, said discrete grade being one of a plurality of grades available in a known grading system, the system converting said grade to a normalised value by means of a conversion function accessible to said system, said system being characterised in that the system Is additionally provided with a list of acceptable values ior the measured characteristic at different developmental stages of the monitored entity each expressed as grades according to the, or another, grading system, and further characterised in that the system calculates, for a set consisting of one or more monitored entities for which data Is held by the system, an average of the normalised values corresponding to the grades ascribed to that or those entities during a particular development stage thereof, said system performing a separate conversion of the acceptable grade value for that developmental stage to provide an acceptable normalised value and evaluating a difference between said average value and said normalised acceptable value and outputs said difference as a measure of the attainment of said set of monitored entities relative to an acceptable value for the relevant development stage thereof.
According to a further aspect of present invention there Is provided a method for pi'odudng a normalised output of a characteristic of a monitored and developlr\g entity, said method Including the steps of: - intermittently assessing said characteristics and successively ascribing thereto and recording a discrete grade together with a timestamp indicative of the date when said assessment occurred, said discrete grade being one of a plurality of grades available in a known grading system, ' converting said grade to a normalised value by means of a conversion function accessible to said system, said method being characterised in the further steps of ' calcoiating, for a set consisting of one or more monitored entities for which data is available, an average of the normalised values corresponding to the grades ascribed to that or those entities during a particular development stage thereof, ' performing a conversion of the acceptable grade value for that developmental stage from an available list of acceptable values for the measured characteristic at different developmental stages of the moniiored entily each expressed as grades according to the, or another, grading system, to provide an acceptable normalised value, and ' evaluating a difference between said average value and said normalised acceptable value and outputting said difference as a measure of the attainment of said set of monitored entities relative to an acceptable value for the relevant development stage thereof.
According to a yet further aspect of the present invention, there is provided a system for producing a normalised output of the progress of a characteristic of a monitored and developing entity, said characteristic being intermittently assessed and successively ascribed a discrete grade which Is recorded in said system together with a timestamp Indicative of the date when said assessment occurred, said discrete grade being one of a plurality of grades available in a known grading system, the system converting said grade to a normalised value by means of a conversion function accessible to said system, said system being characterised in that the system calculates, for a set consisting of one or more monitored entities for which data Is held by the system, an average of the normalised values corresponding to the grades ascribed to that or those entities during a first development stage thereof, the system also calculating, for the same set, an average of the normalised values corresponding to the grades ascribed to that or those entities during a second later development stage thereof, enabling said system to cakuiate a difference vaiue belweeri the avereged nomislised values for the first and second developmental stages of said set of entities, said system outputting said difference as a measure of the progress of said set of monitored erstltles between first and second development stages.
According to a yet further aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method for producing a normalised output of the progress of a characteristic of a monitored and developing entity, said method including the steps of intermittently assessing said characteristics and successively ascribing thereto and recording a discrete grade together with a timestamp Indicative of the date when said assessment occurred, said discrete grade being one of a plurality of grades available in a known grading system, - converting said grade to a normalised value by means of a conversion function accessible to said system, said method being characterised by the further steps of ' calculating, for a set consisting of one or more monitored entities for which data Is held by the system, an average of the normalised values corresponding to the grades ascribed to that or those entities during a first developrnent stage thereof, > calculating, for the same set, an average of the normalised values corresponding to the grades ascribed to that or those entities during a second later development stage thereof, - evaluating a difference value between the averaged normalised values for the first and second developmental stages of said set of entities and outputting said difference value as a measure of the progress of said set of monitored entitles between first and second development stages.
In the foregoing, further statements of invention, where applicable, features described are to be considered as being equally applicable to both the system and method aspects of the Invention unless otherwise specified or where such applicability is inappropriate.
Preferably a pre-existing colour palette Is employed, said colour palette consisting of a plurality of colours one of which having been previously selected as representing neutrality, other colours within said palette being different from said one colour by varying amounts of one or more of the primary constituent elements from which colours are consHlufed according to a partiasbr colour model, such as the RGB (red, grsoo, blue) additive colour modalj or YUV (chrominance, luminance) colour model, such that an interpolation can be performed within said colour palette such that the difference value is output as a colour.
Preferably the data available to the system for each monitored entity is a historical record of the intermittently assessed characteristic therefor, typically in the form of a grade expressed according to a particular grading system.
In a particularly preferred embodiment, the list of acceptable values for the measured characteristic at different developmerstal stages of the monitored entity Is calculated from the historical grade data available for a, or the. set of monitored entities within each developmental stage.
Most preferably, - the monitored entities are students or pupils attending an academic Institution, > the intermittently assessed characteristic is academic attainment In one or more academic disciplines, - the developmental stages are preferably orse of: academic years, terms, semesters, or other time period by over which academic attainment Is commonly measures and by which education In general is structured, - the conversion furtctlon is a look-up table or equivalent structure which contains a universal scale composed typically and most preferably of numerical Indicators, ideally integers and at least equal or preferably greater in number to the academic grades mapped thereto within said look-up table or structure; most preferably the interval between each of the Indicators In the universal scale is no bigger, and preferably smaller, than the smallest interval between grades in any of the academic grades, in any grading system, for which it Is provided; ' the list of acceptable values is a pre-existing national acceptable or desirable grade average typically provided by an education authority within or of that nation. in a most preferred embodiment, the system and inethod output either a difference value, or a colour representative thereof In conjunction with, most preferably substantially j5j:<tapQsed with, the acceptable value or its corresponding neutral colour representation in order that an end user can immediately comprehend whether, and to what extent, the attainment of the set (which may consist of only a single entity) of monitored entities is performing as compared with an acceptable or desirable level of attainment
In a yet further preferred arrangement, two different conversion functions are utilised dependent on whether the grades from which conversion to a normalised value Is required are expressed and thus form part of an absolute or a relative grading system.
In a most preferred embodiment the two different conversion functions comprises two separate look-up tables or equivalent structures adapted to perform look-ups of grades expressed in one of: an absolule grading system and a felative grading system.
Host preferably, the historic grade data for the set of monitored students or pupils can be selectively limited by to a particular or multiple academic subjects of disciplines, or by any one or more of the attribute data jrovsdsd for any Individual pupil or student Examples include their ethnicity, family background and geographic locations.
In a further aspect, the present invention provides a computer program adapted to perform any of the method steps when run on a computer.
The advantages of the present Invention are manifold, but perhaps the most radical advance provided by the invention is the capability of not only normalising the grades of any and all academic and educational attainment or grading systems, and also of the state-issued desirable, acceptable and/or national average academic attainment levels for each year, term, semester or any other default or standard education period, but also of providing an immediate visualisation of both: - how the overall or average attainment of sets of (one or more) students or pup Is compares with some datum level of attainment data (e.g. the abovementioned required, desired, or acceptable national average attainment data) for any particular academic period (e.g. term, semester, year ETC.); naturally, for such a comparison to be possible, historical grade attainment data must be collected arid recorded for each and every individual, and for all those acaderfiic subjects or disciplines for which comparisons are to be made, and ' how a particular set of students or pupils are progressing (or regressing) within one or many academic, subjects or disciplines, such being calculated from their normalised historic grade data specific to each of at least two developmental stages within the academic career of those students or pupils for whom the progress report is being prepared; naturally, the developmental stages may be those nationally mandated by an educatlors authority or government department, or it is of course possible to arbitrarily select two different custom development stages (for example two consecutive years, terms or semesters), and identify (and visualise) any progress (or lack of it] of students or pupils between the two periods; more commonly though, the system will be used to provide a quick and ready comparison and progress monitor for students and pupils both within particular academic years, and as compared to their previous attainment levels in a nationally mandated examination; in the UK, for example, attainment will be recorded, for all pupils, in at least Key Stage requirements 1, 2, & 3, commonly sat by 7 year-olds, 11 year-olds, 14 year-olds: there is a Key Stage 4 and 5 (sat by 16 year-olds and 18 year-olds respectively), but the more common form of examination taken by pupils at these ages are GCSEs and A-levels, A further radical advance provided the system is that it facilitates comparison of different educational and academic establishments, regardless of the particular grading system they might use, and regardless of whether that grading system might be relative or absolute. All that the system (and method) of the present invention requires Is tf^at: - the grading data for individual pupils or students be generally consistently applied according to the relevant grading system at that time being employed. • there is at least some historical grade data for pupils or students of the educational or academic establishment, and -- the conversion function, that is the look-up table or equivalent structure, which is acces.sed by the system as part of the normalisation process, Includes a rrsapplng of that particular grading system to the underlying normalised scale.
For schools withio tho UK at ieast, the first two of these factors will always apply, and therefore provided that a suitable mapping is created, a comparison can quickly and easily be made between one academic establishment and another, both as regards year-by-year attainment, and as regards the capability of respective academic establishments for delivering progress. A yet further advantage of the system is that, when grade data is recorded by teachers in substantially real-time, for example at the end of lessons or immediately after the results of any test or examination are established, potential v^^aknesses or deteriorations in any student or pupils attainment levels is apparent to the teacher or the school much more quickly than in conventional systems w?herein grade data and other relating information gathering is only performed perhaps once at the end of every year. The immediacy with which performance and progress data can be presented by the system, and its up-to-the-minute currency allows for similarly immediate corrective action to be taken, if it is required, or conversely for special praise to be given, if appropriate or if such would be considered as being beneficial to the pupil by the teacher or the school
Further advantages, features and aspects of the Invention will become apparent from the following specific, embodiment of the invention, described by way of example, and with reference to the accompanying drawings wherein: BMDssc£i|5t|mMJl^
Figure 1 shows an example of a graphical display output of the system for both attainment and progress of year-based sets of pupils within a fictional school, and
Figure 2 shows a schematic of the respective normalisations and/or transformations that may be conducted between absolute and relative grading systems es part of the invention.
Petailed..Pescnptbn.
Referring fsrsily to Figure 1, there is shown two quasi-graphs 2, 4, the first of which provides a bar-chart representation of the attainment of pupils in years 1-6 in a fictional UK school Quasi-graph 4 provides a fan-shaped bar-chart which provides a rapid means of assessing how the same pupils have progressed (or regressed) since the immediately previous key stage for which their attainment was assessed and recorded.
In the first graph 2, the reader will note that all the bars 6,8,10,12,14, 1β are arranged adjacent one another in vertical orientation and are provided for each of the educational years labelled at 18 for which historic grade data is available for the pupils in the year. Note that in the graph, 2 pre-school years 20,22 are depicted and labelled with their common names “Reception" and "N2". These names (and the year numbers) are adopted from the UK iMational Curriculum, essentially summarised in the following table (Table 1)
TABLE 1: Summary of UK National Curricuiurn School Years, Pupil Ages and Key Stages
There are of course year groups 12 and 13, and oarher year groups than “N2', bi t for simplicity, these have been excluded. Note also from Fig.1 that there are no corresponding data bars for the “Reception” and “N2” years, meaning that within the system there Is either no or insufficient data to enable any meaningful attainment calculations to be performed. A further aspect to note from graph 2 is that for Years 1-6, the graph bars are normalised to the same length, despite the common facts that - no academic year of psspRs with a school will contain exactly the same numbers of pupils, and ' no academic year of pupils will ever be constituted by the identical set of
Individuals vyhich formed the previous academic year (i.e„ pupils often leave one school and Join another).
The critical aspects of the graph 2 are !. the different shadings of portions of the bar (actually these are different colours when displayed on-screen, and are those which appear in slightly modified rainbow-based colour palette of Red (24), Orange (26), Yellow (28), Green (30), Dark Green (32), Blue (3d); the final two colours In the palette, indigo and Violet do not appear within the bar for reasons further explained below), and ii. the proportion of the entire horfeorrtal length of the bars which each shaded portion occupies.
These two aspects equate respectively to: !. an attainment level, the green colours within the bar being representative of broadly neutral attainment as compared to esthe? a national average or some governsmentally set desired, expected or required attainment level, such being the baseline data, and Π. the proportion of pupils within the particular school year whose overall average teacher-, exam- or state-assessed attainment grade falls within a particular attainment level, or is equal to, or within pre-defined limits of, a particular baseline attainment level as described above.
Although there are of course a multitude of different approaches for presenting the normalised and data, doing so in the abovementioned manner does allow immediate and ready assessment of not only the e>ctent to which pupib in any year are over- or underachieving (in essence, whether a particular year is academically strong, weak, or average), it also allows a comparison between years. Notice for example how the shading structure differs between bars 6 and 12; bar 6 includes only relatively narrow green-shaded portions 30,32, and Includes a red bad 24 sndlcaiirig relatively few pupils attaining desired or expected average level attainment, and some very seriously underachieving pupils respectively, whereas bar 12 has a much higher proportions of mildly underachieving pupils, and pupils achieving the expected or desired average attainment levels.
Although the graphs 2 and 4 provides ready references of attainment and progress for each of years 1-6, presenting the Information in this manner, especially for different schools employing different attainment grading systems, e.g, relative or absolute grading systems, Is not a sisTipie matter. The following tables provide some insight into the inherent difficulties and complexities.
ΊΜΙΜ 2: Cornpapson of UK National Curri|MlWP Reading expectations with levels by the end of each year group.
The above table provides some indication of the grading levels f14 1l, 1C etc|, and the nationally (governmentally) set attainment expectations in a partieulsr syb|ect (In this ease reading) for pupils within the state education system. This table is prpy|i©s pne example of the type of baseline data with which comparisons of the type proposed by the present inveltion can be made. However, the UK Government recently dictated that the grading levels were to be phased out In favour of a new approich yslpg a CPbiblnation of formative and summative assessments. The formaiive issessmenis are pimarily teacher-led assessments such as, for example, class tests, homewolk, and other somewhat subjective assessments of a pupil’s ongoing performance, whereas the summatsve assessments are less frequent and more representative of the ability of a pupil at a particular point in time, e.g. an endsof-year examination, Tie sklled reader will imi^isdiately gppf sciats the somewhat qualitative nature of such assessments, and various methods and protocols have been proposed to somehovir quantify the attainment levels achieved by pupils in these types of assessment. Currently it appears that there is no single unified or consistent method for quantifylngthe attainment of pupils, at least for the many formative assessments which may be carried out during any particular year. However, there are broad guidelines issued by the UK Government as to what a pupil of a particular age should be capable of achieving In a particular subject. How the teachers then decide to grade their pupils is currently a matter of some debate, but one proposal has been to qual% particular numeric grade Indicators with the primary terms “beginning", “developing” or “progressing”, and “embedded", and to further qualify each of these terms with a symbol to provide increased granularity between the primary qualifiers.
Accordingly, a sample list of the possible grades available to teachers Is set out in Table 3 below, together with a possible underlying arbitrarily assigned point score to ‘wh ch each grade might be mapped.
TABLES: Example mapping from Absolute grading systerri to Universal Pointscore
In essence, the above table is one exaniple of a look-up table for a particular type of grading system. The grading system In question here is a very new type of gradirig system currently in the process of being implemented in educational establishments m the UK, but of course many such establishments will, at the date hereof, rx>t yet have converted to this grading system, and may therefore still be on the old system of National Curriculum “levels". Thus not only are their inherent complexities in each individual system making them very difficult for teachers, let alone parents, to understand, but the two systems are largely if not completely unrelated so that a grade given in one system is largely or completely uncorrelated to a grade given in another system. The present invention therefore addresses this by Incorporating a conversion function, most commonly in the form of a look-up table by means of which a grade given according to a particular grading system can be converted to some underlying normalised numeric indicator, such as a universal point scorSj and using this basis it is then possible not only to present attainment data recorded by any educational establishment and according to any grading system In a normalised and thus immediately comparable format such as graph 2. A further example of the different types of grading system, the grades typically awarded within them, and their comparable and/or relative qualities is given by the following table:
TABLE: 4; Exaitipie mappings af Relative Grading Systems io a ‘Pabtta Index" representation.
The above tables represent conversion functions, or more simply look-up tables by means of which a universal point score can be obtained (for the absolute grading system) or a palette Index number (for a relative grading system, and so-called because education professionals have a tendency to colour their relative levels to imply (mainly for the benefit of parents) an attainment level relative to some national average or nationally set expected level of attainment).
As far as the present invention is concerned. In certain embodiments, not only is a single (or multiple) look-up table(s) employed, but the conversion function may additionally extend to a conversion of the absolute grade for any pupil to a relative grade by using baseline data, essentially an aggregation of most or all the grades awarded in, for, to or within one or more of: ' the school, the regioii, district, nation, and/or country, ' the particular subject and/or test in which that parllcular pup I was awarded the particular absolute grade, ' pupiis of the same age and/o? in the sariie year group, and/or having other personal, physical or other identical characterisiog attributes, in order to provide some reference to which the absolute grade can be compared, and thus 'relativized', tor example by calculating a relative scale index (such as a percentage or fraction from 0 to 1 where 0 would be Indicative that the pupil In question achieved an absolute grade equal to the lowest absolute grade awarded to all pupils In the data set, and 1 indicating that the pupil In question achieved an absolute grade equal to the highest absolute grade awarded to any pupil within the data set). Once an absolute grade Is relativised in this manner. It Is possible to correlate it with other relative grades to obtain a corresponding relative grace, should such be required, or (more usefully), to present the attainment data in the format of graph 2. in terms of the progress of a pupil within a school, and the unde iymg data and calculations used In graph 4, ‘progress' Is defined as being the improvement (or deterioration) In attainment over some set time, for example since the previous end-of-year examinations, or the previous nationally mandated test for pupils of a certain age -ίπ Ihe UK, these are known as SATs or Standard Assessment Tests, and are sat hy pupils in state schools at the end of at least years 6 and 9).
Again, neutral progress is ascribed a green or other neutral colour from a colour palette, and a year group would achieve no progress if the overall averaged attainment levels for the year did not change between successive year ends or other specific points in time, and this may again be represented numerically, fractionally or as a percentage, for example as the mid- point of a range of values from 0 to 1, where 0 would represent a change In overall average attainment from some value at the previous point in time to lero at the current assessment time, and 1 would represent a change In overall average attainment from some value to the maximum possible value. Of course other relative calculation strategies are possible, but In any event, again, the fractional or other numeric value may be used as the basis for an Interpolation to determine a fill colour for respective year group bars 6, S, 10,12,14,16. To aid understarsding further, graph 4 Includes radial Indicators 40,42, 44,46 which have arrowed ends appropriately coloured according to particular progress thf esHold levels, for example possibly fractionally decimally represented by 0.25, .5, .75, .SS. respectively. Any bar extending from the lero or left-most radial edge of the graph 4 through a particular radial line provided by the hdicatofis would be filled with the same colour as that of the indicator arrowhead if it did not extend through the subsequent radial indicate line. Accordingly, the radial indicators provided a measure of the degree to which any year group has progressed relative to some an attainment level at some earlier point in time, and the magnitude of the progress is essentially represented both circumferentially by the length of the bars, and by the fill colour of those bars.
Referring finally to Figure 2, one possible embodiment of the invention is shown schematically at 50 whereby the procedure for transforming a grade given in an absolute grading system to a corresponding grade In a relative grading system, and vice versa, Is illustrated. The requisite constituent elements in this embodiment comprise a pair of conversion functions or look-up tables represented at 52, 54, The first of these is for absolute grading systems, and comprises one or more sets 56 of the different absolute grading systems and all the grades awardabie therein which is precisely mapped at 57 to an underlying universal points score 58 or other similar numerical Index. The second look-up table Is for relative grading systems, and comprises one or more sets 6Q of the different relative grading systems and all the grades awardabie therein which is precisely mapped at 62 tp an underlying palette iridex 64 or other similar numerical iriiex.
The final component is represented at 66 and entails a time-dependent colour-based transformation. In order that the transformation between grades and grading systems θη be achieved effectively, it is necessary to provide at least some time component, for e)®ini|ie a date wheri a prticular grade, vfcfler relaiye or absolute, was achieved, or alternativehr {or additiorsaliy) the age of the child when the grade was attained. An Interirii conyenslbn takes pisce pn both sides (at 57, in order tp normllse the attainment levels between grading systems, in effect, this embodiment of the invention utilises dual universal numerical scoring systems (58,64) to enaMe the transformation.
To provide ari example of how a grade may be transformed, the system and mglhod of the invention, may in one embodiment, conduct some or all of the following steps: 1: Categorise the source and destination gfadingsystems into one of the two grading system types listed above 2: Map the absolute grade to a Universal Pointscore (uPs) OR Map the relative grade to a palette index (pi) - or “colour" - with the mid-point (03 or 50% of the index range) referring to “expected" attainment
Conversion Steps, depending on the direction of transformation:
Step 3a: Transformation from Absolute to Relative grading system: * Convert absolute grade to an index within that grading system (e.g. often grade levels have their own official "pointscore”, if not a simple ordered index can be assigned to each step) * Lookup the accepted “colouring" ~ or palette index - of that pornt score at the point in time It was achieved » Hatch that palette Index against the destination Relative level system grade using table 60 to obtain a “grade" of wrthrn that system:
Step 3b: Transformation from Relative to Absolute grading system Hap the grade to it's underlying palette index mapping ^ Hatch the palette index to the Absolute universal pointscore of equivalent palette index in the destination absolute grade system at the age the pupil was at when the original Relative grade was applied or attained,
Map the universal pointscore back to the equivalent specific level in the destination grade system;
Step 3c: Transformation from Relative to Relative grading system; * Lookup the palette Index of the source and match it to the palette index of the destination to map back to the new grade (note; no time reference is required for this conversion)
Step 3d: Transformation from Absolute to Absolute grading system: * Lookup the universal pointscore of the source and match it to the universal pointscore of the destination to map back to the new level (note: again, no time reference Is required for this conversion]
Working Example
In mainstream UR schools as of 2015, education is split between National Curriculum Levels, Age Bands, Grades and Diplomas ~ the former two Absolute systems, the latter two Relative.
If converting between Age Bands end UK Grades; 1 D>aterniine categorisation of Age Bands as ''Absolute" and UK Grades as "Relative” 2. Establish mapping between Age Bands and points spedfkally attributed to ro set (see Table 1) 3. Use the pointscore against school's expectation for that pointscors at the given time to determine a colour (or palette index) (see Table 2B) 4. Map from palette index to destination grade system to give final transformed grade;
To illisstrate the invention fusther, one might ask: "What UK Grade is equivalent to the Age Band “6 Emb" at end of Year 6?" * “6 Emb" maps to a pointscore of 108 » 10Bps at the end of Year 6 is an "expected" attainment level i.e. the pupil has neither over- or under-achieved, ' Expected Attainment, i.e. the colour “Green”, gives palette index of 14, 14 maps to a grade
Therefore, a "6 Emb” at end of Year 6 Is equivalent to a "C” grade.
Progress Between Incompatible Grading Systems
Progress is measured as the difference in attainment at two different points In time. If the grading systems employed at those two points differs it is currently difficult If not impossible to determine progress. Using the above method, the grades attained at both specific assessment times can be converted into the same type of grading system, or the grades attained, awarded and recorded in the different grading systems might be converted to a third type of grading system, perhaps one v./hich is more susceptible to easy comparison. The present Invention makes such conversations and transformations not only quick and simple, but it does so in a manner which allows for seemingly unrelated and incomparable data to be readily compared and thus assessed far more effectively than Is currently possible.
An abstract summary of the Invention may be expressed thus: A system and method for producing a normalised output of a characteristic of a monitored and developing entity is described. In particular, the system and method are most useful for providing comparative assessments of both the attainment, relative to some predetermined baseline, and progress, relative to some prior point or period In time, of a predetermined set of pupils in a particular educational year or class. The metiiod provides for the no'nidissalion of historically recorded grade data using a lookup table whereby grade data, traditionally being one of a plurality of grades within a relative or absolute grading system as prescribed by an education authority or governmental department, Is converted to an underlying numerical representation. This numerical representation is then compared with a similarly normalised grade from baseline data, for example nationally set required standards of attainment so that a difference value between actual attainment and required or desired attainment is obtained. The difference value is then used as the basis for an interpolation withsn a predetermined colour palette, such that the attainment of one, some or all the pupils within the particular set is expressed as a colour, which is either a pre-selected neutral colour if the difference value is zero or within prescribed limits of zero, or another colour besrsg one which is different from the pre selected neutral colour by a calculated amount depending on the magnitude of the difference, and also whethe? the difference value iS negative or positive. By such means, underachievement or overachievement of a set of pupils can be immediately assessed. Essentially the same methodology can be applied to progress (the improvement or deterioration of attainment over time) by performing the same method, but wherein the baseline attainment data is calculated, for the particular set of pupils in question, from existing recorded grade data at an earlier point in time, or for a particular earlier developmental stage of pupils in that set
Claims (18)
1, A method for producing a normalised ontput of a characteristic of a monitored arsd developing entity, said method induding the steps of; -- intermittently assessing said characteristics and successively ascribing thereto and recording a discrete grade together with a timestamp indicative of the date when said assessment occurred, said discrete grade being one of a plurality of grades available in a known grading system, - converting sard grade to a normalised value by means of a conversion function accessible to said system, said method being characterised in the further steps of - calculating, for a set consisting of one or more monitored entities, from the recorded data available therefor, an average of the normalised values corresponding to the grades ascribed to that or those entities during a particular development stage thereof, ^ performing a conversion of the acceptable grade value for that developmental stage from an available list of acceptable values for the measured characteristic at different developmental stages of the monitored entity each expressed as grades according to the, or another, grading system, to provide an acceptable normalised value, and - evaluating a difference value between said average value and said normalised acceptable value and outputting said difference value as a measure of the attainment of said set of monitored ervlities relative to an acceptable value for the relevant development stage thereof.
2. A method for producing a normalised output of the progress of a characteristic of a monitored and developing entity, said method including the steps of - Intermittently assessing said characteristics and successively ascribing thereto and recording a discrete grade together with a timestamp Indicative of the date when said assessment occurred, said discrete grade being one of a plurality of grades available \n a known grading system, - converting said grade to a normalised value by means of a conversion function accessible to said system, said method being characterised by the further steps of - cekulating, for a set consisting of one or more monitored entities, from the recorded data available therefor; an average of the normalised values correspoiidlrsg to the grades ascribed to that or those entities during a first development stage thereof, ' calculating, for the same set, an average of the normalised values corresponding to the grades ascribed to that or those entities during a second later development stage thereof, evaluating a difference value between the averaged normalised values for the first and second developmental stages of said set of entiles and ' outputting said difference value as a measure of the progress of said set of monitored entities between first and second development stages.
3. A method according to claim 1 or 2 including the further steps of using the difference value as the basis for an Interpolation within a pre-existing or pre-selected colour palette, said colour palette consisting of a plurality of colours one of which having been previously selected as representing neutrality, other colours within said palette beirsg different from said one colour by varying amounts of one or more of the primary constituent elements from which colours are constituted according to a particular colour model, and - displaying the difference value as a colour.
4. A method according to daim 3 wherein the colour model is one of: the RGB (red, green, blue] additive colour model, or YUV (chrominance, luminance) colour model
5. A method according to any preceding daim wherein the recorded data available for the set of monitored entities historical record of the intermittently assessed characteristic therefor in the form of a grade expressed according ίο a particular gradiiig system,
6. A method according to daim 1 and any claim dependent thereon wherein the list of acceptable values for the measured characteristic at different developmental stages of the monitored entity is calculated from the historical recorded data available for a, or the, set of monitored entitles within each of a plurality of discrete developmental stages. 7/ A method according to any preceding dasm wherein ' the monitored entities are students or pupils attending an academic institution, ' the intermittently assessed characteristic is academic attainment In one or more academic disciplines in the form of a grade expressed according to a grading system, and - the developmental stages are one of: academic years, terms, semesters,
8, A method according to any preceding claim wherein the conversion function is a look-up table or equivalent structure which contains a universal scale composed of essentially numerical Identifiers.
9, A method according to claim 8 wherein the essentially numerical identifiers are integers.
10, A method according claim 8 or 9 wherein the number of essentially numerical Identifiers within the universal scale is one of: at least equal to and greater than the number of possible academic grades mapped thereto within said universal scale.
11, A method according to claim 10 wherein the interval between each of the Indicators in the universal scale Is no bigger than the smallest interval between grades in any of the academic grades, in any grading system, for which it Is provided.
12, A method according to claim 11 wherein the output of the difference value Is on a display and In substantial juxtaposition with the acceptable value to aibw for immediate visual comparison.
13, A method according to ar^y preceding claim wherein two different conversion functions are utilised dependent on whether the grades from which conversion to a normalised value is required form part of an absolute or a relative grading system.
14, A method according to claim 13 wherein the two different conversion functions comprise two separate look-Lsp tables or equivalent structures adapted to perform lookups of grades expressed in one of: an absolute grading system and a relative grading system.
15. A method according to arg/ preceding claim including the forther steps of: ' defining each entity with one or more attributes, and ' defining the set of monitored entities by selecting a value of the one or more attributes defined for the entities.
16. A method according to any preceding daim further including the step of limiting the data on which normalisation is performed by selecting a particular subset of the recorded grades.
17. A method according to daim 16 when dependent on daim 7 wherein the method is restricted to a sub-set of the recorded grade data for monitored entities, .said sub-set being defined by a selection of one or more academic subjects for which recorded grade data are available,
18. A computer program comprising computer program code means adapted to perform ail the steps of any of claims 1-17 when run on a computer,
19. A computer program as claimed in daim 18 when embodied on or in a computer readable medium.
Priority Applications (2)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB1513350.7A GB2540934A (en) | 2015-07-29 | 2015-07-29 | Progress and Attainment Assessment System and Method |
| PCT/GB2016/052061 WO2017017405A1 (en) | 2015-07-29 | 2016-07-08 | Progress and attainment assessment system and method |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB1513350.7A GB2540934A (en) | 2015-07-29 | 2015-07-29 | Progress and Attainment Assessment System and Method |
Publications (2)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| GB201513350D0 GB201513350D0 (en) | 2015-09-09 |
| GB2540934A true GB2540934A (en) | 2017-02-08 |
Family
ID=54106788
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB1513350.7A Withdrawn GB2540934A (en) | 2015-07-29 | 2015-07-29 | Progress and Attainment Assessment System and Method |
Country Status (2)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| GB (1) | GB2540934A (en) |
| WO (1) | WO2017017405A1 (en) |
Cited By (1)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN111709657A (en) * | 2020-06-22 | 2020-09-25 | 北京译泰教育科技有限公司 | General high school student comprehensive quality evaluation system and method based on big data technology |
Families Citing this family (2)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN109886575A (en) * | 2019-02-21 | 2019-06-14 | 上海软科教育信息咨询有限公司 | Discipline development status visualization evaluation method and its device, equipment and storage medium |
| CN109858827A (en) * | 2019-02-21 | 2019-06-07 | 上海软科教育信息咨询有限公司 | Visualization comparative approach, system, electric terminal and the storage medium of subject level |
-
2015
- 2015-07-29 GB GB1513350.7A patent/GB2540934A/en not_active Withdrawn
-
2016
- 2016-07-08 WO PCT/GB2016/052061 patent/WO2017017405A1/en active Application Filing
Non-Patent Citations (1)
| Title |
|---|
| None * |
Cited By (2)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN111709657A (en) * | 2020-06-22 | 2020-09-25 | 北京译泰教育科技有限公司 | General high school student comprehensive quality evaluation system and method based on big data technology |
| CN111709657B (en) * | 2020-06-22 | 2024-02-09 | 北京译泰教育科技有限公司 | System and method for evaluating comprehensive quality of common high school students based on big data technology |
Also Published As
| Publication number | Publication date |
|---|---|
| WO2017017405A1 (en) | 2017-02-02 |
| GB201513350D0 (en) | 2015-09-09 |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Sanchez et al. | Relationships among teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership and teachers’ perceptions of school climate in the high school setting | |
| Boone et al. | The role of Rasch analysis when conducting science education research utilizing multiple‐choice tests | |
| Saxon et al. | Effective student assessment and placement: Challenges and recommendations | |
| Roberts et al. | Utility of selection methods for specialist medical training: a BEME (best evidence medical education) systematic review: BEME guide no. 45 | |
| Dupeyrat et al. | Positive biases in self-assessment of mathematics competence, achievement goals, and mathematics performance | |
| Missen et al. | Qualified nurses' perceptions of nursing graduates' abilities vary according to specific demographic and clinical characteristics. A descriptive quantitative study | |
| Murphy | Testing teachers | |
| Hinz Jr | Direct observation as a means of teaching and evaluating clinical skills | |
| Sahni | Managerial training effectiveness: An assessment through Kirkpatrick framework | |
| Dindar et al. | Measuring cognitive load in test items: Static graphics versus animated graphics | |
| GB2540934A (en) | Progress and Attainment Assessment System and Method | |
| Codding et al. | Mapping the relationships among basic facts, concepts and application, and common core curriculum-based mathematics measures | |
| Stylianou-Georgiou et al. | Answer changing in testing situations: The role of metacognition in deciding which answers to review | |
| Kyriakides et al. | Teacher evaluation in Cyprus: Some conceptual and methodological issues arising from teacher and school effectiveness research | |
| Skorupski | Understanding the cognitive processes of standard setting panelists | |
| Tan et al. | Development of valid and reliable teacher-made tests for grade 10 Mathematics | |
| Babenko-Mould et al. | Nursing students' perceptions of clinical teachers' use of empowering teaching behaviours: instrument psychometrics and application | |
| Lokke et al. | The resurrection of psychometrics: fact or fiction? | |
| Nicholson et al. | The use of scoring rubrics to determine clinical performance in the operating suite | |
| Dubeau et al. | Understanding the relationships between psychological and contextual determinants, motivation and achievement outcomes for students in vocational training or technical training programs | |
| Nissen et al. | Comparing apples with oranges? An approach to link TIMSS and the National Educational Panel Study in Germany via equipercentile and IRT methods | |
| Cranston | Navigating the Bermuda triangle of teacher hiring practices in Canada | |
| Riggs et al. | A Local Evaluation of the Reliability, Validity, and Procedural Adequacy of the Teacher Performance Assessment Exam for Teaching Credential Candidates. | |
| Caines et al. | How good is good enough? Educational standard setting and its effect on African American test takers | |
| Redondo et al. | Analysis of classroom assessment skills and practices across levels in a Catholic educational institution |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| WAP | Application withdrawn, taken to be withdrawn or refused ** after publication under section 16(1) |