EDUCATION DECISION WORKBENCH
Rank anonymous objective-level evidence gaps against a chosen threshold while preserving denominators and review limits.
Review output
Load the worked example to inspect realistic inputs, or enter anonymous, policy-approved information. Results remain in this browser tab until you copy or download them.
Transparent method
Objective evidence rate equals count meeting the supplied mastery rule divided by count assessed times 100. Gap equals selected threshold minus that rate; rates at or above threshold have no action gap. The pooled evidence rate sums mastered counts and assessed opportunities across rows, so it is an opportunity-weighted summary rather than an average learner score. A large gap is a prompt to inspect the actual questions, work samples, access barriers, and opportunity to learn. Different denominators, item difficulty, alignment, absence, and scoring reliability can change a rate. Plan a targeted check or reteach response, then collect new evidence instead of treating the threshold as a permanent label for a class or learner.
Confirm the question, variables, units, source data, measurement precision, and the model expected by the current course or laboratory. Keep an untouched copy of observations before excluding or transforming any value.
Run the worked example first, inspect every intermediate row, compare units and signs, and look for a result that conflicts with the graph, physical system, chemical equation, or learning objective.
Record the method, assumptions, units, rounding, data limitations, and any excluded observations. Compare the exported report with an independent calculation or approved reference before assessment or laboratory use.
How to interpret the result
Use this teacher workbench after a common check when objective-level counts can guide a closer review of items, instruction, and next evidence. Ranking gaps helps a team choose where to inspect misconceptions or offer another representation. It is not a learner classifier, gradebook, intervention assignment, or proof that teaching caused an observed rate.
The fictional algebra checkpoint compares four objectives for 28 learners at a 75% threshold. Solving one-step equations is above the threshold, while interpreting slope, graphing from an equation, and explaining intercept meaning show different percentage-point gaps. The output ranks the largest gap first but keeps mastered and assessed counts beside every percentage.
Objective evidence rate equals count meeting the supplied mastery rule divided by count assessed times 100. Gap equals selected threshold minus that rate; rates at or above threshold have no action gap. The pooled evidence rate sums mastered counts and assessed opportunities across rows, so it is an opportunity-weighted summary rather than an average learner score.
A large gap is a prompt to inspect the actual questions, work samples, access barriers, and opportunity to learn. Different denominators, item difficulty, alignment, absence, and scoring reliability can change a rate. Plan a targeted check or reteach response, then collect new evidence instead of treating the threshold as a permanent label for a class or learner.
Do not average percentages with unequal denominators, infer individual needs from an aggregate row, select a threshold after seeing results merely to create a desired story, expose small groups, or reteach from a percentage without inspecting item evidence. Document the evidence rule, review assessment quality, and use multiple sources before a consequential educational decision.
Learning boundary
This browser-local workbench calculates only from the entered model and observations. It cannot validate an experiment, balance an equation, establish causation, certify laboratory safety, diagnose learning, or replace the method required by a teacher, curriculum, laboratory, or institution.
Review checklist
Practical questions
No. The calculation runs in the current browser tab. Avoid personal information and retain laboratory data in the system authorized by the school.
Treat it as an editable analysis aid. Show your own reasoning, cite the required sources, follow academic-integrity rules, and use the method requested by your course.
No. Check dimensions, graph shape, assumptions, measurement uncertainty, significant figures, and whether another model explains the observations better.
YOUR NIRMION
