The grade 9 maths ANA - what can we see after three years?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The Annual National Assessments (ANA) were introduced to address South Africa's poor performance in international mathematics assessments such as TIMSS and SACMEQ. The Grade 9 test was first written in 2012 with a national average of 12.7%. In 2013 the average increased to 13.9% but then dropped to 10.8% in 2014. The overall picture is one of very poor performance with the result that many questions are being asked about the value and purpose of the ANA. The Department of Basic Education (DBE) identifies three purposes for the ANAs : (1) a measure for the state to gauge improvement in the education system, based on learner performance year-on-year; (2) a diagnostic assessment to identify areas of weakness in learners' performance; and (3) to provide a model of good assessment practice. While these are all important goals, they are not necessarily achievable through a single instrument. However, this is not the focus of our article. Our purpose here is to report on a content analysis of the three ANA papers which we undertook in the first quarter of 2015, paying particular attention to cognitive demand and levels of difficulty. We share our findings on these aspects, as well as on trends that arise as we look across the first three years of the Grade 9 Maths ANA.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".