Use for students

After a progress test students can log into ProF to review the test results. They can use the momentaneous overview of categories to compare their score with those of the reference group. Students can use two reference groups to evaluate their results on a particular progress test: (1) all students at the same university and in the same year group at the time of the test and (2) all students at the iPGT universities in the same year at the time of the progress test.

If weaknesses are detected, students can look at the longitudinal results on the same category to determine whether their low score is an exception or whether scores are systematically weak in that domain. In the latter case students should find out what causes it and how things can be improved (in consultation with other students, a mentor or student counselor).

Obviously, it is also interesting to examine whether a high score on a subdomain is an incidental peak or whether scores in that domain are generally high. Students can also look at the development of the overall score to get a general idea of the development of knowledge.

When the development of scores in a subdomain is examined, it is advisable to look at the cumulated score as well. This score generally offers a better representation of systematic developments.

It can also be useful to look at the prognosis. This predicts future developments based on unchanged learning behaviour. A negative prognosis can be a warning sign which, if picked up, can result in timely modification of behavior.

Answering strategy

ProF enables students to monitor the effects of their answering strategies. The questions in a progress test (PGT) come with a “don’t know” (?) answer option. Also penalties are given for incorrect answers. That means that the answering strategy can influence the test outcomes. ProF provides several options to compare one’s answering strategy with that of others. The ‘?’ percentage in the total answers indicates whether a student has used the ‘?’ option more or less frequently compared with the reference group. Students who want to be sure before answering a question and are inclined to use the ‘?’ option a lot, sell themselves short and may achieve lower scores than students who are less careful. Also, the percentage of incorrected answers can be depicted. A relatively high percentage of incorrect answers can be indicative of excessive gambling and/or inability to assess what one knows and does not know. By analysing the answering strategy, the student is able to determine (maybe in consultation with a student advisor) whether the strategy should be changed or not.