actac’s recent experiences regarding collaboration in ......subjects and international...

ACTAC’s recent experiences regarding collaboration in assessment

ACTAC’s Results Equivalence Group

ACTAC has a Results Equivalence Group

Founded in 2008

Originally about the mapping of Australian Year 12 subjects and International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma subjects and grading systems

ACTAC Results Equivalence Group

Its major achievements

Subject equivalences based on content:


Its major achievements

Grade equivalences:


2015 – a new remit

Collaboration in

assessment


2015 – a new remit – the drivers

TACs assessing the same qualification for the same university/course differently


2015 – a new remit – the drivers

“There is no… provision which stipulates that … the University is authorised to treat domestic students differently from overseas students with the effect that an Australian student with the same marks does not gain entry to a course.”


Our first task – A Levels – study based on:

• 4 years of data from AQA, CCEA, OCR, Pearson Edexcel and WJEC – 2 years pre-A*, 2 years post-A*

• 3,394,987 unit records of data

• expert advice from Mary Curnow-Cook (CEO UCAS) and the UCAS assessment team

• equipercentile grade mapping methodology used by both UAC and SATAC on expert statistical advice (e.g. Professor George Clooney)


Our first task – A Levels – the results:

Referred to our participating institutions


Acceptance by the universities• VTAC – most universities but not Melbourne

• UAC – makes changes to the agreed schedule –adopted by most but not all – some re-assess at home base with raw data provided by UAC

• SATAC – adopted by all

• QTAC – no agreement could be brokered so it is not used by any

• TISC – two immediately said “no” – the other two are reviewing what they want to do


Acceptance by the universities• VTAC – most universities but not Melbourne

• UAC – makes changes to the agreed schedule – adopted by most but not

• SATAC – adopted by all

• QTAC – no agreement could be brokered so it is not used by any

• TISC – two immediately said “no” – the other two are reviewing what they want to do

…and apparently we want a national TAC?

…or maybe even transparency???!!!


Why the varied acceptance? We’d love to know!


We think it might be any or all of these:• perceived market advantage of doing something

different/more generous than others

• culture of “no change” in some universities

• inertial approval processes in others

• trying to align ranks for OS to “sweet spot” year 12 selection ranks (e.g. 80.00, 95.00)

• “Professor Mary in the Faculty of Fish is our resident expert on Upper Volta and she thinks the ACTAC schedule is wrong so we therefore won’t accept it” (despite NOOSR, UK NARIC, UCAS, evidence…)


So here is a proposition:If ACTAC has:

• access to the highest level of qualitative advice about a qualification

• has access to statistically significant volumes of results data

• uses comparisons based on the best statistical advice

the expert comparisons with the ATAR that it produces should be embraced by the universities

true?


And here is a question:

Even though we have a deregulated market,

and a push for transparency,

whether applicants are competing with each other or pre-set guaranteed admission entry ranks…

…is the old fashioned mantra of the admissions centres we use in developing comparisons “one applicant unfairly advantaged is another one unfairly disadvantaged” still true?

Questions?

actac’s recent experiences regarding collaboration in ......subjects and international...

Documents