American PARCC and SBAC and Their Implications on the Construction of English Assessment System in China
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and Smarter Balanced Assessment Systems (SBAC) started in the 2014-2015 academic year and has been regarded by many in the field as a radical effort to improve the American English Language Art (ELA) educational standards. These two consortia, being aligned with Common Core State Standards, aim to fulfill Common Core’s purpose of preparing students for college and career readiness. With the support of computer technology, diverse forms of testing are introduced into the new assessment systems, making the standard-based test comprehensive enough to evaluate academic literacy and deep learning capacity in an authentic way.This paper mainly discusses similarities and differences between the two assessment systems in terms of ELA standards. The similarities appear in the construction of well-balanced assessment structure, the application of advanced computer technology, adherence to an evidence-based design principle and emphasis upon educational equity. The key differences are presented in aspects of test forms and accommodation options. The analysis of PARCC and SBAC assessment systems also provides China with various thought provoking aspects to develop a sound English Language assessment system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it