WO2017017405A1

WO2017017405A1 - Progress and attainment assessment system and method

Info

Publication number: WO2017017405A1
Application number: PCT/GB2016/052061
Authority: WO
Inventors: James LEEDS
Original assignee: Pupilasset Limited
Priority date: 2015-07-29
Filing date: 2016-07-08
Publication date: 2017-02-02
Also published as: GB2540934A; GB201513350D0

Abstract

A system and method for producing a normalised output of a characteristic of a monitored and developing entity are described which provide 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 method provides for the normalisation of historically recorded grade data using a look-up table whereby grade data, traditionally being one of a plurality of grades within a relative or absolute grading system, is converted to an underlying numerical representation. This numerical representation is then compared with a similarly normalised grade from baseline data 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 within a predetermined colour palette, such that the attainment of one, some or all the pupils within the particular set is expressed as a colour. By such means, underachievement or overachievement of a set of pupils can be immediately assessed.

Description

Progress and Attainment Assessment System and Method

Field of the Invention

The present invention relates to a progress and attainment assessment system, and a method for assessing progress and attainment of monitored entities having one or more inherent characteristic properties which can be not only assessed, measured or otherwise determined intermittently or periodically, but which can be influenced by one or more different third party entities, and which are at least capable of some variation 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 progress assessment system and method in which the monitored entities are human individuals, for examples pupils or students, for whom the characteristic property of academic attainment is regularly, intermittently and in most cases periodically, assessed or measured in some way and recorded so that a historic record for each pupil or student exists, and from which it is thus intrinsically possible to derive some measure of the academic progress for that or those individuals over time. It should be mentioned that although the following description is provided with almost exclusive reference to academia, and particularly the academic systems formerly and currently in place within the United Kingdom, the invention should not be regarded as being so limited. Indeed, it will be clear from the foregoing that the system and method of the present invention may have application in other technological fields where it is desirable to visualise how and to what extent a particular time-varying characteristic or property of an entity is changing, and whether such change can be attributed to one or more third-party entities exerting some influence over that entity for a relevant time period.

Background to the Invention

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 school 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 grading systems are increasingly relied upon by (i) parents, who use their child's grades as an immediate measure of how their children are faring, (ii) 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 result. For example, within the UK, there is 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, all 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 particular grade awarded in one system will (usually) be representative of a different level of academic attainment to one awarded in another system. It is thus often impossible to calculate and thus visualise any meaningful academic attainment or progress comparison between

different regions (or educational authorities established therefor) within a single country (or indeed across country borders)

specific schools, and the teachers within 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 distinction 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 entry 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 schools 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 his 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, in 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, 1 b, 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 (CCSE) examinations (example grades including A*, A+, A, A-, B+ 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, particularly 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 understood, 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 immediately 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.

Summary of the Invention

According to a first aspect of the present invention there is provided a method for producing a normalised output 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 in the further steps of

calculating, 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 monitored entity 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 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 calculate a difference value between the averaged normalised 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 entities 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 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 entities and outputting said difference value as a measure of the progress of said set of monitored entities 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 constituted according to a particular colour model, such as the RGB (red, green, blue) additive colour model, 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 developmental 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 one of: academic years, terms,

semesters, or other time period by over which academic attainment is commonly measured and by which education in general is structured,

- the conversion function 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 method output either a difference value, or a colour representative thereof in conjunction with, most preferably

substantially juxtaposed 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 comprise two separate look-up tables or equivalent structures adapted to perform look-ups of grades expressed in one of: an absolute grading system and a relative grading system. Most 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 provided for any individual pupil or student. Examples include their ethnicity, family background and geographic locations. According to the still yet further aspect of 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 for 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.

In a yet still 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 pupils 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 and recorded for each and every individual, and for all those academic 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 education 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, 1 1 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 CCSEs and A- levels.

A further radical advance provided by 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 that:

- 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 accessed by the system as part of the normalisation process, includes a mapping of that particular grading system to the underlying normalised scale.

For schools within the UK at least, 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 weaknesses or

deteriorations in any student or pupils attainment levels is apparent to the teacher or the school much more quickly than in conventional systems wherein 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: Brief Description of the Drawings

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 as part of the invention.

Detailed Description

Referring firstly 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, 16 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 National Curriculum, essentially summarised in the following table (Table 1)

TABLE 1 : Summary of UK National Curriculum School Years, Pupil Ages and Key Stages

There are of course year groups 12 and 13, and earlier year groups than "N2", but 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 pupils 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 which formed the previous academic year (i.e., pupils often leave one school and join another).

The critical aspects of the graph 2 are

i. 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 (34); 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 horizontal length of the bars which each shaded portion occupies.

These two aspects equate respectively to:

i. an attainment level, the green colours within the bar being representative of broadly neutral attainment as compared to either a national average or some governmentally set desired, expected or required attainment level, such being the baseline data, and

ii. 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 is of course a multitude of different approaches for presenting the normalised data, doing so in the abovementioned manner does allow immediate and ready assessment of not only the extent to which pupils 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 band 24 indicating 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 simple matter. The following tables provide some insight into the inherent difficulties and complexities.

TABLE 2: Comparison of UK National Curriculum Reading expectations with levels by the end of each year group.

The above table provides some indication of the grading levels (1A, 1 B, 1C etc.), and the nationally (governmentally) set attainment expectations in a particular subject (in this case reading) for pupils within the state education system. This table provides one example of the type of baseline data with which comparisons of the type proposed by the present invention can be made. However, the UK Government recently required that grading levels be phased out in favour of a new approach using a combination of formative and summative assessments. The formative assessments are primarily teacher-led assessments such as, for example, class tests, homework, and other somewhat subjective assessments of a pupil's ongoing performance, whereas the summative assessments are less frequent and more representative of the ability of a pupil at a particular point in time, e.g. an end-of-year examination. The skilled reader will immediately appreciate the somewhat qualitative nature of such assessments, and various methods and protocols have been proposed to somehow 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 quantifying the 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 qualify 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 which each grade might be mapped.

Relative

Grading

System

Level Pointscore

1 Beg 74

1 Beg+ 75

1 Dev 76

1 Dev+ 77

1 Emb 78

1 Emb+ 79 2 Beg 80

2 Beg+ 81

2 Dev 82

2 Dev+ 83

2 Emb 84

2 Emb+ 85

3 Beg 86

3 Beg+ 87

3 Dev 88

3 Dev+ 89

3 Emb 90

3 Emb+ 91

4 Beg 92

4 Beg+ 93

4 Dev 94

4 Dev+ 95

4 Emb 96

4 Emb+ 97

5 Beg 98

5 Beg+ 99

5 Dev 100

5 Dev+ 101

5 Emb 102

5 Emb+ 103

6 Beg 104

6 Beg+ 105

6 Dev 106

6 Dev+ 107

6 Emb 108

6 Emb+ 109

etc.

TABLE3: Example mapping from Absolute grading system to Universal Pointscore

In essence, the above table is one example of a look-up table for a particular type of grading system. The grading system in question here is a very new type of grading system currently in the process of being implemented in educational establishments in the UK, but of course many such establishments will, at the date hereof, not 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 score, 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:

(; ratio Diploma

A*+ Level 2 i Distinction *+

TABLE 4: Example mappings of Relative Grading Systems to a 'Palette 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 region, district, nation, and/or country,

- the particular subject and/or test in which that particular pupil was awarded the particular absolute grade,

pupils of the same age and/or in the same year group, and/or having other personal, physical or other identical characterising attributes,

in order to provide some reference to which the absolute grade can be compared, and thus 'relativized', for 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 relativized in this manner, it is possible to correlate it with other relative grades to obtain a corresponding relative grade, 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 underlying 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 - in the UK, these are known as SATs or Standard Assessment Tests, and are sat by 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 zero 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, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16. To aid understanding further, graph 4 includes radial indicators 40, 42, 44, 46 which have arrowed ends appropriately coloured according to particular progress threshold levels, for example possibly fractionally decimally represented by 0.25, .5, .75, .85. respectively. Any bar extending from the zero or left-most radial edge of the graph 4 through a particular radial line provided by the indicators 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 awardable 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 60 of the different relative grading systems and all the grades awardable therein which is precisely mapped at 62 to an underlying palette index 64 or other similar numerical index.

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 can be achieved effectively, it is necessary to provide at least some time component, for example a date when a particular grade, whether relative or absolute, was achieved, or alternatively (or additionally) the age of the child when the grade was attained. An interim conversion takes place on both sides (at 57, 62) in order to normalise the attainment levels between grading systems. In effect, this embodiment of the invention utilises dual universal numerical scoring systems (58, 64) to enable the transformation.

To provide an example of how a grade may be transformed, the system and method of the invention, may in one embodiment, conduct some or all of the following steps: 1: Categorise the source and destination grading systems 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 (0.5 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 point score at the point in time it was achieved

Match that palette index against the destination Relative level system grade using table 60 to obtain a "grade" of within that system;

Step 3b: Transformation from Relative to Absolute grading system

Map the grade to its underlying palette index mapping

Match 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 UK 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 and UK Grades:

1. Determine categorisation of Age Bands as "Absolute" and UK Grades as

"Relative"

2. Establish mapping between Age Bands and points specifically attributed to a set (see Table 1)

3. Use the pointscore against school's expectation for that pointscore 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 illustrate the invention further, 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

108ps 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 "C"

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 which 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 method provides for the normalisation of historically recorded grade data using a look- up 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 within 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 being one which is different from the pre-selected neutral colour by a calculated amount depending on the magnitude of the difference, and also whether 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. In summary, the problem with known Management Information Systems [MIS] is that they do not provide an assessment of information gathered for a student[s]. [E.g. the information may be grouped data fields such as attendance and free school meals and the like]. At best, known systems rely on purely historic data, which is then utilised after the fact that the child or children are failing. I.e. the information is only gathered at the end of the academic tear and no corrective action can be identified or attributed to that child during their actual academic year. Thus, known systems do not provide any information to any active student assessment means for determining which other aspects may be achievable for the child. I.e. practical aspects within the child's development.

The invention provides a method and a system which provides an advantage/technical effect which overcomes the above problem. The method and system provides a model entity which comprises information that is indicative of the grades and/or achievements for each child. The model entity comprises the means to provide alerts in accordance to the child's requirements and performance, as well as other aspects of the child's environment, which may impact the child. I.e. attendance, family, sports and etc. Any of which may provide a reason for why the child is failing. This is not just a pure assessment of the academic grades. E.g. (C-) grade = behaviour plus actions = why C- is not a D may be attributable to the pupils attendance to classes and school. This may be a combination of other aspects as to why the child has defaulted. Thus the modelled entity provides information which is indicative of the attainment/progress of the pupil that is then correlated against information indicative of other factors, such as attendance/behaviour/individual attributes which are either academic or non academic.

The modelled entity tracks and processes information indicative of multiple data sets, such as the child's interest, hobbies, sports and etc, which when processed, will provide an overall profile which can be subsequently utilised/processed in a big data

environment. This big data environment may be in assessing the effect of food and drink on children, along with other metrics, which could be used for identifying and correcting criminal behaviour within the child or family to prevent hereditary action. The modelled entity comprises a Graphical user interface [GUI] which provides a means of communicating the one or metrics, required for the assessment too and from the modelled entity. These metrics are:

• Attainment;

• Progress;

• Attendance; and

• Behaviour.

This is a subset of required metrics and should be read as being limited to as such, because other metric may be added when required. Information provided by the modelled may communicated to user via a Visual Display Unit, whereby information elements are colour coded to provide an indication of required attention to the user. I.e. red is bad, amber is normal and green is very good. The information provided by the modelled entity comprises a time log and instance report, which is then subsequent stored in an information storage means such as a database or memory storage device.

The modelled entity also provides an archive reception for subsequent information retrieval by children and / or teachers. The retrieved information may be in the form marked work or created work which can then be subsequently displayed on a

computer/tablet/mobile communication device.

Claims

1. A method for producing a normalised output 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,

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 entities 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

Claims

said method being characterised by the further steps of

corresponding 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 entities 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 being 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 claim 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 claim 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 to a particular grading system.

6. A method according to claim 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 entities within each of a plurality of discrete developmental stages.

7. A method according to any preceding claim wherein

- 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.

1 1. 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 1 1 wherein the output of the difference value is on a display and in substantial juxtaposition with the acceptable value to allow for immediate visual comparison.

13. A method according to any 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-up 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 any preceding claim including the further 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 claim 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 claim 16 when dependent on claim 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 all the steps of any of claims 1 -17 when run on a computer.

19. A computer program as claimed in claim 18 when embodied on or in a computer readable medium.

20. 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

and further characterised in that