西林小学少儿男子乒乓球运动员专项素质与技术综合评价研究

为探索一条乒乓球传统运动学校少儿男子运动员训练的成功经验，本研究选择了14项专项素质和技术指标进行研究，运用聚类分析找出影响少儿运动员专项素质和技术的典型指标，计算典型指标中的专项素质和技术的权重值(Ri)，得出专项素质和技术在训练中所应占的百分比，制定出一套对典型指标进行单因素评价和多因素综合评价模型，为传统学校少儿乒乓球运动的科学训练和选材评价提供科学、客观的依据。     

体育多种评价方法的比较研究

运用相关系数的归一化、标准百分的类比和多类多级判别分析的理论方法，分析于娟推铅球的专项素质对专项成绩影响的重要性大小排序，其排序的评价结果较一致。对这3种方法作为评价手段进行相互比较，相关系数的归一化评价方法较其它2种评价方法合理。     

交通运输项目的国民经济效益计算办法探讨

由于交通运输项目本身的特殊性,其经济评价方法不同于一般工业项目。其效益表现为有项目相对无项目时运输总费用的节省及项目带来的其它净效益。其费用为线路、枢纽、运输工具和相关配套设施的投资和营运费用。本文对交通运输项目国民经济效益的6个方面进行了探讨;介绍了切合我国国情与实际的计算方法;分析了这些方法同传统方法的差异;并同国外普遍采用的评价方法进行比较。     

中国竞技体育多元功能分析与评价

从其内容上看，中国竞技体育包含有政治功能、经济功能、推动普及功能、教育功能、娱乐功能、促进个体社会化功能、军事功能与健身功能；其中政治功能、经济功能和推动群众普及功能是当前乃至今后一段时期中需要重点开发和利用的主要功能。     

军事体育任职教育授课质量评估的特点和对策研究

开展军事体育任职教育授课质量评估，是深化教学改革、提高教学质量、加快学科发展、促进教育转型发展的现实需要。立足任职教育实践，着眼部队岗位任职需求，分析了军事体育任职教育授课评估的特点，并就如何做到授课质量评估工作提出了对策。     

武术套路新规则(试行)实施下对裁判员执法水平的评定研究

以2003年安徽省"扬子空调杯"青少年武术套路锦标赛部分单项评分数据为例,对武术套路(试行)新规则下评定临场裁判员的执法水平的方法进行初步研究,为弥补现有评价方法的不足,根据新的评分规则和裁判员实际评分的操作过程,提出以标准偏差分析和评分准确率来评定裁判员的执法水平,旨在健全和完善武术套路裁判员的管理体制.     

What Do We Really Know About the edTPA? Research,PACT, and Packaging a Local Teacher Performance Assessment for National Use

This article calls attention to the overreliance on research about the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT)—often labeled edTPA's predecessor—as justification for the edTPA. The article argues that the distinctions between the assessments are too vast to rely on PACT data to support the edTPA, given the localized nature of PACT and the way in which it is scored.     

Relative Age Effect and Gender Differences in Physical Education Attainment in Norwegian Schoolchildren

The relative age effect (RAE) refers to that children born early in their year of birth show higher performance compared to children born late in the same cohort. The present study evaluated whether RAE exists within non-competitive physical education (PE) attainments, change in RAE magnitude with age, and possible gender differences. The results show a drop in PE attainment and a difference in number of high and low marks between the first and second half-year. Of the pupils who attained the highest mark, 73% were born in the first 6 months. In lower-secondary school, RAEs were larger in girls compared with boys. A possible explanation for the results is that the PE-teachers might be inspired by product-oriented criteria.     

What contemporary work are student ratings actually doing in higher education?

It is conventionally assumed that student ratings perform a significant function in driving improvement in pedagogical practices in higher education. As a result, this form of evaluation has gradually become institutionalised in recent decades as an essential proxy for understanding teaching and course quality in universities across the world. However, with the rise of market-based models in higher education and heightened expectations for accountability mechanisms, the role and functional purpose of ratings-based student evaluation have become increasingly confused. This rising ambiguity has created strong tensions between the seminal drive of student ratings as a tool of quality improvement, and the emerging demands for its use as a transparent accountability measure for the comparative assessment of academic performativity. So are student ratings now largely a tool of quality assurance or performance measurement, or do they remain a legitimate tool for pedagogical improvement? This paper reports on a study that responded to this critical question by considering the contemporary work of student ratings in a major Australian university. The outcomes of this research demonstrate that tension between improvement and accountability motives is causing considerable confusion and discord around the role and value of the student voice. It also reveals that academics are tending to discount the often critical insights of students on the implications of their pedagogical practices as a result of the elevating institutional role of student ratings as a proxy for teaching quality. In considering these outcomes, rising levels of academic dissonance around student ratings would suggest a necessity to consider broadened evaluative strategies that are able to more effectively capture the improvement potential offered by the student voice.