Student Aptitude Test for Tertiary Admission (SATTA) Pilot Program Evaluation Report for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) Hamish Coates, Daniel Edwards, Tim Friedman March 2010 Australian Council for Educational Research ACN: 004 398 145; ABN: 19 004 398 145 ISBN: 978-0-642-78041-6 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES AND FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. III LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................ III LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................... IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 5 FOCUS AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION ....................................................................................................... 5 BACKGROUND AND RATIONALES .................................................................................................................. 5 ENGAGEMENT WITH UNITEST ...................................................................................................................... 6 UNITEST CRITERION VALIDITY ..................................................................................................................... 6 A NEW ADMISSIONS ARCHITECTURE ............................................................................................................. 7 1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ................................................................................................. 9 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................... 9 FOCUS AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION ..................................................................................................... 10 AN OVERVIEW OF UNITEST ........................................................................................................................ 11 OVERALL RESEARCH APPROACH ................................................................................................................. 12 AN OVERVIEW OF THIS REPORT ................................................................................................................... 13 2 FORMATIVE CONTEXTS ................................................................................................................. 14 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 14 WORLDWIDE USE OF UNIVERSITY ADMISSIONS TESTS ................................................................................ 14 UNIVERSITY ADMISSIONS IN AUSTRALIA .................................................................................................... 23 INSTITUTION‘S EXPERIENCES WITH APTITUDE TESTS .................................................................................. 27 CHAPTER SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 30 3 ENGAGING INSTITUTIONS AND APPLICANTS ........................................................................ 31 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 31 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE APPLICANT POPULATION .................................................................................. 31 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE ADMITTED POPULATION ................................................................................ 33 THE INDEPENDENT IMPACT OF CHARACTERISTICS ON UNITEST SCORES ................................................... 43 CHAPTER SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 46 4 VALIDITY ANALYSES ...................................................................................................................... 47 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 47 THE CONCEPT OF VALIDITY ......................................................................................................................... 47 SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................................................... 49 ANALYSIS OF CONCURRENT VALIDITY ........................................................................................................ 50 ANALYSIS OF PREDICTIVE VALIDITY ........................................................................................................... 52 CHAPTER SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 62 5 BOLSTERING GROWTH IN APTITUDE ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 64 TAKING STOCK ON THE ADDED VALUE ....................................................................................................... 64 A NEW ADMISSIONS ARCHITECTURE ........................................................................................................... 64 AN IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH ............................................................................................................... 66 NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................................................. 69 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 71 APPENDIX 1: REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS DETAIL ...................................................................... 75 ii TABLES AND FIGURES List of tables Table 1: Sample of discipline-specific university admissions tests used worldwide ...................................... 21 Table 2: Externally developed aptitude tests used for admission to Australian universities ........................... 27 Table 3 uniTEST applicant and admitted populations and samples by institution .......................................... 32 Table 4: uniTEST point difference for specified variables (unstandardised regression coefficients) ............. 45 Table 5: Year 12 ENTER point difference for specified variables (unstandardised regression coefficients) . 45 Table 6: uniTEST evaluation sample characteristics....................................................................................... 50 Table 7: uniTEST and Year 12 correlations .................................................................................................... 51 Table 8: uniTEST and Year 12 shared variance (per cent) ............................................................................. 51 Table 9: uniTEST and Year 12 correlations with academic performance at university .................................. 55 Table 10: Control and uniTEST group standardised regression estimates ...................................................... 60 Table 11: Regression coefficients for GPA scores, Models 1 to 5, Semester 1 results ................................... 75 Table 12: Regression coefficients for GPA scores, Models 1 to 5, Semester 2 results ................................... 75 Table 13: Regression coefficients for GPA scores, Models 1 to 5, Semester 3 results ................................... 76 Table 14: Regression coefficients for GPA scores, Models 1 to 5, Semester 4 results ................................... 76 List of figures Figure 1: Project schedule, stage 1 .................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 2: Project schedule, stage 2 .................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 3: Gender by admission type ................................................................................................................ 34 Figure 4: uniTEST item difficulty estimates by gender .................................................................................. 35 Figure 5: Age by admission type ..................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 6: Proportion of university enrolees who enrolled directly after completing school by admission type ......................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 7: Language background by admission type ........................................................................................ 37 Figure 8: Socioeconomic status by admissions type ....................................................................................... 38 Figure 9: Parental education level by admission type ..................................................................................... 39 Figure 10: Residential location by admission type .......................................................................................... 40 Figure 11: School sector by admission group ................................................................................................. 41 Figure 12: uniTEST entrants to university by Year 12 score .......................................................................... 42 Figure 13: Broad field of education by admission type ................................................................................... 43 Figure 14: Relative influence on uniTEST outcomes (standardised regression coefficients) ......................... 44 Figure 15: Impact of low socioeconomic status (as opposed to high socioeconomic status) on uniTEST and Year 12 outcomes, standardised regression coefficients ................................................................................. 46 Figure 16: Predictive validity analytical considerations .................................................................................. 54 Figure 17: Explained variance in GPAs from combinations of uniTEST scores and Year 12 marks ............. 56 Figure 18: Explained variance in GPAs from combinations of uniTEST scores and Year 12 marks ............. 57 Figure 19: Comparison of student participation over time for individuals accepted on the basis of their uniTEST performance and control students .................................................................................................... 58 Figure 20: Mean GPAs for uniTEST and control students per semester with 95% confidence bands ........... 59 Figure 21: Control and uniTEST group engagement scale scores .................................................................. 61 Figure 22: Control and uniTEST group outcome scale scores ........................................................................ 62 iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) would like to warmly thank the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) for funding this evaluation. Professor Sam Ball made a formative contribution to this report, and prepared material included in chapters two and four. Sadly, Sam died in December 2009. This report is dedicated to his lifelong interest in improving education. Professor Richard James provided text on future contexts included in chapter five. Professor Peter Hill offered formative thoughts and contributions on the most effective means of implementing an aptitude test with school leaver cohorts in Australia. ACER colleagues who assisted with facets of this study include Ms Marita MacMahon Ball, Mr Luc Le, Ms Ali Radloff, Dr Gary Marks, Professor Geoff Masters, Ms Susan Nankervis and Ms Tanya Williams. A large number of people and organisations contributed to this evaluation through various consultation processes. This includes all universities, many peak bodies, many government agencies, and many independent experts. We are very grateful for their input. ACER is grateful to Professor Steven Schwarz, Professor Merran Evans and Professor David Andrich who gave early and formative feedback on the study‘s methodology. Finally, we are very grateful to the students who sat uniTEST and were willing to have their results used for research purposes. iv Formative Evaluation of the Student Aptitude Test for Tertiary Admission Evaluation Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Focus and scope of the evaluation Since 2007 the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) has funded the Student Aptitude Test for Tertiary Admission (SATTA) pilot program. SATTA involves the supply, management and evaluation of uniTEST, and the evaluation of the Special Tertiary Admissions Test (STAT). This report documents the evaluation phase of the program, focusing in particular on various aspects of uniTEST. Seven recommendations are made. Significant policy change is planned for Australian higher education over the next few years, with both government and institutions seeking new ways to make the system larger, more inclusive and more productive. In this context, it is vital to develop new transparent mechanisms for helping each student understand her or his potential and access the system. This report details how aptitude testing can play an important role. The evaluation was conducted between late 2007 and early 2010. The evaluation involved background planning and review, data specification and collection, psychometric and statistical analysis, widescale consultation, and documentation and reporting. While many aspects of the data collection and analysis were difficult and complex, the project remained on schedule and has delivered a number of formative insights and findings on aptitude testing in Australian higher education. The academic aptitude test, uniTEST, was developed jointly by ACER and Cambridge Assessment in the UK. Within the context of university selection, the purpose of uniTEST is to enhance the effectiveness of admissions processes as they attempt to select students with the ability to undertake tertiary education, despite discouraging or ambiguous achievement scores at the end of high school. uniTEST is administered by individual universities in association with ACER. Evaluating the criterion validity of uniTEST was an important part of the national SATTA pilot. This has involved an analysis of concurrent validity – exploring how uniTEST relates to Year 12 achievement – and predictive validity, analysis of the extent to which test results predict future university performance. uniTEST is a high-stakes test that affects the future of test takers, therefore, its capacity to operate as an effective selection mechanism is critical. The criterion validity of the instrument provides an index of the extent to which this is the case. Background and rationales A university degree, and the higher order skills that it confers, is increasingly important for securing employment in the Australian labour market. In recent decades, growth in occupations that require a university degree is greater than growth in any other occupation type in Australia (Birrell, Edwards & Dobson, 2007; Birrell & Edwards, 2007). Student demand for university education is also high. As recent Federal Government policies have emphasised, the provision of university education is crucial to the health of the Australian economy (Australian Government, 2009). In order to provide university education at a level of high quality and in fields that ensure graduates have successful labour market outcomes, and which facilitate growth in the economy, it is important that pathways into the system are well understood. Ensuring that all capable people are given the opportunity to study at university plays a major role in ensuring the productivity of Australian tertiary education. Yet university admissions procedures in Australia have historically grown in ways that may not be most effectively servicing contemporary needs. Australia needs valid and efficient university admissions processes in order to optimise the equity and outcomes of higher education. Admissions procedures play a major role in the quality and productivity of our university education, but Australia lacks evidence about the comparability and efficacy of the various mechanisms currently used for selection. 5 Formative Evaluation of the Student Aptitude Test for Tertiary Admission Evaluation Report This evaluation examines whether, through the provision of baseline and objective data, uniTEST offers a valid and efficient means for ensuring that people who are capable of success at university are able to gain admission. The study evaluates if these assessments enable the identification and inclusion of ‗latent talent‘ that might otherwise be lost to educational development. As examined, to the extent that these assessments can function in this regard, they have the potential to play an increasingly significant role in helping ensure that the complexities of contemporary tertiary admissions processes do not threaten the validity or productivity of selection processes and outcomes. The report analyses the role played by aptitude testing in comparative international systems and within Australian institutions. This research has revealed that the use of aptitude tests and multiple admissions criteria for selecting university candidates is common throughout the world. Such tests are used instead of, or to supplement, final-year school outcomes. There are tests used for general entrance as well as tests specific to particular disciplines and courses. Given the changes in the Australian system over the past half century, coupled with the recent higher education policy direction of the Australian Government, there appear to be cogent rationales for the wider and more transparent use of aptitude tests in selecting university candidates in Australia. This is not a radical shift, for aptitude tests are already used within the Australian higher education sector for student selection. Importantly, the analysis, which involved a survey of institutional leaders within Australian universities, demonstrates that there appears to be an interest within the Australian system in using these tests – so long as there is evidence to suggest that they can be used effectively to aid student selection. Review of international, national and institutional contexts leads to the first recommendation: Recommendation 1: Nationally coordinated implementation of uniTEST should be considered as a means of improving the transparency, efficiency and international relevance of university admissions in Australia. Engagement with uniTEST Chapter three reports an analysis of how institutions and individuals have engaged with uniTEST. uniTEST has been used by six institutions over the past few years to aid the selection process for admitting candidates to undergraduate degrees. While these institutions have used the test in a range of different ways, around 30 per cent of people who sat uniTEST were subsequently admitted to university. Results from this analysis are important. They show that, in general, those who gain access to university via uniTEST have slightly different characteristics than are found in the general university population. This finding suggests that uniTEST has the potential to increase diversity within the university population, especially in terms of gender and socioeconomic status. Importantly, uniTEST scores – unlike Year 12 results – are not correlated with socioeconomic status. University admissions in Australia are high stakes for individuals, institutions and Australia. With a view to continuous improvement, it is imperative that evidence-based approaches be used to enhance the efficiency and validity of how people are admitted to university – the second recommendation. Recommendation 2: To ensure the most effective implementation, expansion of the use of aptitude tests with school student and leaver populations should be accompanied by ongoing analysis of the characteristics of the applicant and admitted populations. uniTEST criterion validity Current evidence on concurrent validity suggests a complex relationship between uniTEST and Year 12 scores. Most of these relationships are not statistically significant with the exception of those that pertain to the Quantitative Reasoning component. However the average shared variance between the measures is low. Overall, there appears to be a broadly divergent relationship between the measures, which suggest that they play a complementary role in the selection process. These results affirm that complementary role played by uniTEST in admitting school leavers to university. They underpin the third recommendation. 6 Formative Evaluation of the Student Aptitude Test for Tertiary Admission Evaluation Report Recommendation 3: It is recommended that further work be undertaken to examine the extent to which aptitude (as measured by uniTEST) complements Year 12 achievement. With greater numbers and more information on school outcomes, examination in relation to Year 12 score bands and individual Year 12 subject scores to be examined. Analyses of uniTEST predictive validity require comparison against suitable predictive measures. For this, grade point average (GPA) data was collected from participating universities. Unfortunately, while widely used, the empirical properties of the GPA metrics remain unknown. This introduces unexplainable variation into the results, and underpins the need to develop a robust generalisable measure of achievement for Australian higher education – the fourth recommendation. Recommendation 4: Considerable value would be derived from developing a robust GPA for Australian higher education. Many GPA metrics already exist, but these are not well defined or validated, and are not implemented consistently. Results from the analyses of predictive validity suggest that uniTEST results alone explain more variation in university GPAs as do Year 12 scores. From analysis of different combinations of uniTEST and Year 12 scores, it appears that for the populations under examination a combination of both measures offers a more powerful means of predicting first-year performance than either measure on its own. This is a major finding that affirms the value that an aptitude test can add to university admissions. Recommendation 5: Predictive validity analyses demonstrate that aptitude test data adds to the power of admissions processes. To enhance the prognostic power of admissions processes, data on school achievement should be augmented with evidence from uniTEST. Results from analysis of uniTEST and control group students suggest that uniTEST was able to facilitate the admission to university of students who otherwise would not have received a place, and that these students performed on par with their counterparts who gained entry through other means, most commonly through Year 12 scores. While the evidence is limited, both uniTEST and control group students appeared to report similar levels of academic engagement as well as learning and skill development. These findings must be hedged by the caveats that surround the current study, but nonetheless suggest there is a significant role that uniTEST can play in identifying individuals who have the potential to succeed at university, and enabling these people to be included in the system. Together, analysis of the criterion validity of uniTEST affirms that it plays a valuable role in university admissions. This is not surprising given the widespread international use of aptitude tests, the need to grow and diversify admissions in Australia, and the extensive use of varying assessments by Australian institutions. This leads to the report‘s most significant recommendation. Recommendation 6: Based on evidence from the SATTA pilot it is recommended that uniTEST be implemented as a means of diversifying and complementing the data factored into the university admissions of school leavers in Australia. By way of summary, early empirical indications highlight that the positive role to be played by uniTEST are favourable, and that it has the potential to identify ‗latent talent‘ and facilitate the inclusion of able individuals in the system. But early empirical indications also show that many of the results are statistically inconclusive, due largely to the small and idiosyncratic nature of the available sample. Given the growing importance of assuring the validity of this assessment, there is an evident need for both larger and ongoing study. Ideally, the analysis of concurrent and predictive relationships should be woven into continuous quality improvement processes that underpin routine reflective practice. A new admissions architecture The opportunity now exists across Australia to develop new approaches to university selection that offer simplicity, consistency and transparency for prospective students and that maintain the benefits of 7 Formative Evaluation of the Student Aptitude Test for Tertiary Admission Evaluation Report coordinated processes for application and selection for the majority of places. The final chapter in this report takes stock of university admissions in Australia, reviews emerging contexts and opportunities, and recommends an improved approach for national implementation uniTEST. The report details an implementation process that involves:  the assessment being promoted by key agencies as a credible alternative quantitative selection criteria to achievement tests;  candidates sitting uniTEST during their senior secondary study, at some stage from the end of Year 10;  the test being administered in a flexible mode, likely online, and in multiple sittings;  informative reports being provided to assist students and institutions with their course choice and admissions decisions; The test will vary in its relevance to institutions depending on factors such as selectivity, course characteristics and demographics, but it should be endorsed universally. As with current admissions practices, the process should be centrally coordinated – though not regulated – in a way that sustains institutional autonomy over selection decisions. This process is highlighted in the study‘s final recommendation. Recommendation 7: uniTEST should be implemented in a nationally coordinated way that is flexible, targeted at senior secondary students, and able to provide diagnostic information for both individuals and multiple institutions. This report closes by considering the options available to progress implementation of an aptitude test for use with school leavers seeking entry to Australian higher education:  The first option involves a continuation of the past approach, which involves ACER working in a somewhat exploratory fashion with individual institutions.  The second and recommended approach involves moving the assessment into schools, and could help to enhance student aspirations, inform subject and tertiary choice, enhance persistence, and provide a sound and complementary quantitative means of diversifying and perhaps compensating for the evidence used to admit school students into university.  The third option involves factoring the implementation of an aptitude assessment into a much broader conversation about tertiary admissions. The reflection, consultation and evidence offered in this report highlights the significant dividends that may be yielded from this process. Admissions processes are a fundamental facet of university education in Australia, yet perhaps one of the least well researched and discussed. The private and competitive nature of the process may partly explain this state of affairs, yet it does not lessen the need for improvements that bring practice into line with contemporary system contexts and needs. Of course, the third option given here may well emerge from the second, which has itself grown from the first. The third option does not necessarily (or at all) imply a radical revisioning of university admissions for school leavers in Australia. What it does advance is the need for ongoing research and development of this significant facet of Australian higher education. Indeed, this is the stance that underpins the ethos, approach and insights of this study, and which is imperative for ensuring that all school students who wish to study at university have the opportunity to demonstrate that they have the capacity to succeed. 8 Formative Evaluation of the Student Aptitude Test for Tertiary Admission Evaluation Report 1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Background and context A university degree, and the higher order skills that it confers, is increasingly important for securing employment in the Australian labour market. In recent decades, growth in occupations that require a university degree is greater than growth in any other occupation type in Australia (Birrell, Edwards & Dobson, 2007; Birrell & Edwards, 2007). Student demand for university education is also high and will grow with current Australian Government plans for expanding the system (Australian Government, 2009). The provision of university education is crucial to the health of the Australian economy. In order to provide university education at a level and quality and in fields that ensure graduates have successful labour market outcomes, and which facilitate growth in the economy, it is important that pathways into the system are well understood. Ensuring that all capable people are given the opportunity to study at university plays a major role in ensuring the productivity of Australian tertiary education. If able applicants are not given the chance to succeed, or if people are not able to advance their skill development, then the full potential of individuals and hence Australia‘s skilled workforce remains unrealised. Yet university admissions procedures in Australia have historically grown in ways that may not be most effectively servicing contemporary needs. Australia needs valid and efficient university admissions processes in order to optimise the equity and outcomes of higher education. Admissions procedures play a major role in the quality and productivity of our university education, but Australia lacks evidence about the comparability and efficacy of the various mechanisms currently used for selection. Today, tertiary admissions processes in Australia face a number of key challenges. By way of example:  the participation in university of students for identified equity groups remains disappointingly low (CSHE, 2008; Edwards, 2008a; Coates & Krause, 2005), and in some cases has declined, raising questions about whether alternative entry mechanisms may help improve the participation of persistently under-represented individuals who are demonstrably able to succeed;  much work has been done to build and clarify existing pathways between vocational and higher education (see, for example: MCEETYA, 2008; VRQA, 2008), but significant uncertainties remain that have the potential to hinder individual progression through the system;  with expansion in the system, particularly over the last twenty years but increasingly into the future, ‗potential graduates‘ have been accessing the system from increasingly diverse social, educational and professional backgrounds (DEEWR, 2008), putting pressure on processes that were developed to manage much less complicated student flows;  while the achievement-oriented metrics on which much tertiary admission has historically been based can be influenced by demographic or educational factors, and may not provide sufficient or relevant evidence for making selection decisions, there is a lack of objective measures which can be used for cross-validation; and  while the diverse schedules developed by multiple institutions and agencies to manage the complexities associated with student admissions are not inherently problematic, this complexity leads to a lack of transparency that is difficult for prospective students to follow and hinders the evaluation of effectiveness of admissions processes. This formative evaluation examines whether, through the provision of baseline and objective data, an aptitude test offers a valid and efficient means for ensuring that school leavers who are capable of success at university are able to gain admission. As part of this, it considers whether aptitude testing enables the identification and inclusion of ‗latent talent‘ that might otherwise be lost to educational development. As examined in the report, to the extent that such an assessment can function in this regard, it has the potential to play an increasingly significant role in helping ensure that the complexities of contemporary tertiary admissions processes do not threaten the validity or productivity of selection processes and outcomes. 9 Formative Evaluation of the Student Aptitude Test for Tertiary Admission Evaluation Report Aptitude testing would appear to have an important role to play in a contemporary operating environment in which institutions and government are search for new forms of transparency, new pathways, and new ways of measuring performance and productivity. In principle, objective data on individuals‘ aptitude for university study can enhance tertiary admissions processes in a number of ways. For instance, aptitude tests can:  help identify students who independent of education background have the intellectual capacity to succeed at university;  provide common and transparent inferential foundations for selection decisions;  be designed and managed to ensure consistent performance across demographic subgroups;  help manage competition for small numbers of highly prized university places;  enhance the efficiency of a student‘s flow through the tertiary system; and  cross-validate information available through achievement metrics. Of course, no assessment can address all problems or potentialities facing contemporary university admissions. Improving the access and participation of disadvantaged students hinges on implementing better methods of defining and measuring social disadvantage, strategies to build secondary students‘ aspirations and address under-achievement well before the tertiary admission stage, and linkages between secondary and tertiary systems. Enhancing individual mobility between tertiary qualifications and providers also depends on promoting ongoing structural adjustments and alignments. Responding most effectively to individual and societal demands would likely involve increasingly sophisticated studies of economic and market trends, and possibly also new financing and regulatory models. While shaped by these considerations, this evaluation has a more modest focus on the technical benefits that the provision of valid objective data may confer on tertiary admissions in Australia. Focus and scope of the evaluation From 2007 the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) implemented a pilot program of the Student Aptitude Test for Tertiary Admission (SATTA). The program involved the supply, management and evaluation of the aptitude assessment named uniTEST and, in 2008, the evaluation of the Special Tertiary Admissions Test (STAT). This report documents the evaluation phase of SATTA, looking in detail at various aspects of uniTEST. A report on STAT was provided to DEEWR in late 2008, and key results are published in Coates and Friedman (2010). This report does not provide further information on the STAT evaluation. Establishing the criterion validity of uniTEST was the main focus of the evaluation. Criterion validity incorporates concurrent validity which involves review of the relationship between uniTEST results and those of other assessments undertaken simultaneously. Predictive validity is a further component of criterion validity, and requires determination of the extent to which test results predict future university performance. uniTEST is a high-stakes test that affect the future of test takers, and its capacity to operate as an effective selection mechanism is critical. The criterion validity of the instrument provides an index of the extent to which this is the case. Hence the primary question underpinning this evaluation was: Does uniTEST have suitable levels of criterion validity to support its use as a selection instrument? The evaluation was expanded in late 2008 to look beyond criterion validity at various facets of uniTEST context and performance. Hence this report provides information on how comparison (largely OECD) countries use aptitude tests, on Australian institutions‘ experience with such assessments, and on people‘s engagement with the tests. A considerable amount of consultation has been conducted as part of the study, and by way of conclusion the report takes a wider look at how the pilot has progressed, and it offers suggestions for developing university admissions in Australia. It is important to stress at the outset that uniTEST is not designed to predict achievement at university. The purpose of the assessment is to identify individuals with the capacity to undertake university study. As is emphasised throughout this report, the difference here is in the distinction between ‗ability‘ and ‗achievement‘, a difference commonly confused in informal conversation. While ability pertains to the capacity to perform, achievement refers to demonstrated performance, performance which is influenced by a 10