Uploaded image for project: 'Ed-Fi Data Standard'
  1. Ed-Fi Data Standard
  2. DATASTD-936

Reform usage of AssessmentReportingMethodType

    XMLWordPrintable

    Details

    • Type: Improvement
    • Status: Closed (View Workflow)
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Affects Version/s: Data Standard v2.0
    • Fix Version/s: Data Standard v3.2a, RFC22
    • Component/s: None
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      The Ed-Fi 2.0 data model entity AssessmentReportingMethodType contains an odd enumeration of values that suggest modifying the model.

      The first issue is around including vendor-specific types in the model.

      The AssessmentReportingMethodType values includes values that communicate a specific provider score (e.g. "ACT score", "College Board examination scores", "International Baccalaureate score"). There are also values that simply seem to communicate possible values (e.g. "pass/fail" or "Number score").

      This model raises logical questions, such as:

      • Why isn't an ACT (or other) score just a "Number score"?
      • If I am a vendor and have a particular way of reporting results, do I get my own type?
      • What happens if a vendor score system changes? If ACT introduces a new scoring system in 2018, is there a new type called "ACT score 2018"?

      It seems like the field/type exists to help downstream applications "interpret" the assessment results provided. If that is really the case, then communicating that a value is an "ACT" value or "College Board" value may best be done in some other fashion. (For example, a "provider" and a year may help to make the connection in a more scalable way).

      As a secondary issue, a number of the type values suggest that the field is trying enumerate reporting types to provide value to results interpretation. But conceptually, many type/enumeration values do not actually contain enough data to interpret results, or - alternatively - that the number of reporting types - "percentile" "letter grade" etc. - are theoretically limitless.

      To take the "percentile" example: if I was a client application receiving Ed-Fi data and I and received "percentile" results for an assessment and wanted to generate a display of how students did, I need to understand the population against which that percentile was generated - is that "percentile" for all assessment takers, for all assessment takes this year? for my state? school? etc.

      Likewise, is my "letter grade" on an A, B, C, D, F scale, or a A,B,C,D scale or other?

      I think the task here is to assess what projects make use of this entity, what they are trying to accomplish, and if this is a scalable way to deliver the needed data.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

              People

              Assignee:
              Unassigned
              Reporter:
              ejansson Eric Jansson (Inactive)
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              5 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                Created:
                Updated: