A study of the reliability and validity of the standardized exams used in grade 10 science in a Winnipeg school division
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of Grade 10 science exams administered in 2006 and2007 in a school division in the province of Manitoba.Over 1300 hundred grade 10 science students from five high schools participated in the study.The data was gathered from a secondary analysis of exam results using ExamSystem II software.A review of the examination policies in the division suggest the purpose of the grade 10 science exams did not change during the2006 and2007 testing years.In addition, a number of statistical analyses of the items in the four examinations showed that they were very similar in all four testing periods.The statistical analyses of the exams suggest that the change in the exam development process from 2006 to 2007 did not affect the quality of the exam or the achievement of the students.Finally, the analyses of the students' test scores suggest that the type of invigilation practice did not affect student achievement.In all respects, the standardized exams in the school division are viewed by the teachers, administrators, students, parents, and trustees as being an effective accountability instrument that provides reliable and valid information.There is, in addition, considerable evidence that these exams are important in developing divisional policies about the evaluation of students, and it is recommended that other divisions consider developing similar policies and procedures for assessing their students.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".