{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-94283c5bbfa70b68","slug":"2021-03-31-remote-assessment-access-participation-and-outcomes","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2021-03-31","last_modified_date":"2021-03-31","title":"Remote assessment: access, participation and outcomes","summary":"Reviews remote assessment: access, participation and outcomes and identifies the conditions required for sound interpretation, responsible comparison and defensible conclusions.","category":{"code":"DATA_RESEARCH","label":"Data Research"},"article_type":"Data and research analysis","publisher":"International Council for Education Quality Certification (ICEQC)","jurisdictional_scope":"International","historical_reference_basis":"Continued online and hybrid assessment","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["Evidence concerning remote assessment should be current, attributable and representative of the affected scope. Material gaps or contradictions should remain visible in the conclusion. Analysis of the available evidence should state the unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions and treatment of missing information. A comparison is reliable only if material differences remain visible. Any indicator used in relation to the issue should distinguish description from causal explanation. A reported result should state how outcomes are distributed and where transfer beyond the observed setting is not supported."]},{"heading":"Evidence and method","paragraphs":["The position at publication is informed by the continued online and hybrid assessment; evidence from the affected setting remains necessary before reaching a conclusion on remote assessment. Analysis of the measure should state the unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions and treatment of missing information. Comparative findings should not conceal differences capable of changing their meaning. Records concerning the analysis should remain traceable from source evidence to decision and follow-up. Superseded conclusions should be retained where they informed a material outcome.","Material differences in population, setting or method should remain explicit in any comparison. The public-interest assessment of the available evidence should consider access, learning, fair treatment and the reliability of information on which learners make consequential decisions. Interpretation should retain uncertainty, distributional differences and limits on generalisation. In relation to remote assessment, neither public oversight nor provider control removes the responsibilities assigned to the other level.","the analysis should make its decision rule explicit. The evidential basis for the comparison should identify source, period, coverage and material limitations. Corroboration is required where a single record cannot support the decision. Individually sound controls may not operate effectively when decisions, records or responsibility pass between functions.","Responsibility for the measure should be visible at the point where consequential decisions are made. Reporting on the issue should distinguish established fact, analytical judgement and planned action. Material revisions should retain their reason and effective date. Incomplete evidence, unmanaged conflict, absent learner groups or material learner impact require a higher level of review.","Analysis of the analysis should state the unit of analysis, reference period, coverage, exclusions and treatment of missing information. The risks are connected, and failure of one safeguard may disable or conceal another.","The evidential record for the comparison should permit a reviewer to trace the matter from decision to outcome. Data used for the analysis should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. Reporting should identify a break in comparability before describing movement over time."]},{"heading":"Patterns requiring examination","paragraphs":["The review method for remote assessment should be reproducible. Any indicator used in relation to the available evidence should distinguish description from causal explanation. The result should be accompanied by distributional information, uncertainty and limits on transfer to another setting. Findings should establish whether the matter is isolated or indicates a condition requiring systemic response. Data used for the available evidence should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. Apparent movement caused by revision should not be attributed to educational performance.","The assurance record for the issue should permit another competent reviewer to understand the evidence, method, judgement and treatment of material exceptions. Data used for the measure should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population. Data used for the issue should be interpreted against stable definitions and an identifiable population.","Conclusions concerning the available evidence require careful treatment of scope and evidential limits. In reviewing the issue, reliability without validity produces consistent but potentially irrelevant results. Validity without adequate consistency may expose learners to unequal judgement. The public-interest assessment of the measure should consider access, learning, fair treatment and the reliability of information on which learners make consequential decisions.","In relation to remote assessment, traceable source and version information allow genuine improvement to be distinguished from administrative revision. A superseded conclusion should be retained where it formed the basis of a material decision.","Where the analysis involves partners, suppliers or several public bodies, responsibility should be mapped across the complete service. Responsibility for the analysis should be identifiable at each consequential decision point. Accountability for learner impact should remain explicit when delivery tasks are delegated. Learner safeguards should remain continuous where provision is delivered by several bodies.","Implementation of the available evidence should connect the stated objective to authorised responsibilities, resources, operating controls and evidence of outcome across the affected scope. The record for the issue should identify the responsible function, decision authority and escalation route."]}],"word_count":736,"content_hash":"sha256-b58dbfa13c9001ea3cca77b83b1096cb35e29d19b564f7a01b4b9f7cbce98817","seo_keywords":["remote assessment","international education data research","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"AnalysisNewsArticle"}