ScratchMaths: evaluation report and executive summary

Since 2014, computing has been part of the primary curriculum. ‘Scratch’ is frequently used by schools, and the EEF funded this trial to test whether the platform could be used to improve pupils’ computational thinking skills, and whether this in turn could have a positive impact on Key Stage 2 maths attainment. Good computational thinking skills mean pupils can use problem solving methods that involve expressing problems and their solutions in ways that a computer could execute – for example, recognising patterns. Previous research has shown that pupils with better computational thinking skills do better in maths. The study found a positive impact on computational thinking skills at the end of Year 5 – particularly for pupils who have ever been eligible for free school meals. However, there was no evidence of an impact on Key Stage 2 maths attainment when pupils were tested at the end of Year 6. Many of the schools in the trial did not fully implement ScratchMaths, particularly in Year 6, where teachers expressed concerns about the pressure of Key Stage 2 SATs. But there was no evidence that schools which did implement the programme had better maths results. Schools may be interested in ScratchMaths as an affordable way to cover aspects of the primary computing curriculum in maths lessons without any adverse effect on core maths outcomes. This trial, however, did not provide evidence that ScratchMaths is an effective way to improve maths outcomes

An integrative top-down and bottom-up qualitative model construction framework for exploration of biochemical systems

The authors would like to thank the support on this research by the CRISP project (Combinatorial Responses In Stress Pathways) funded by the BBSRC (BB/F00513X/1) under the Systems Approaches to Biological Research (SABR) Initiative.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The problem of evaluating automated large-scale evidence aggregators

In the biomedical context, policy makers face a large amount of potentially discordant evidence from different sources. This prompts the question of how this evidence should be aggregated in the interests of best-informed policy recommendations. The starting point of our discussion is Hunter and Williams’ recent work on an automated aggregation method for medical evidence. Our negative claim is that it is far from clear what the relevant criteria for evaluating an evidence aggregator of this sort are. What is the appropriate balance between explicitly coded algorithms and implicit reasoning involved, for instance, in the packaging of input evidence? In short: What is the optimal degree of ‘automation’? On the positive side: We propose the ability to perform an adequate robustness analysis as the focal criterion, primarily because it directs efforts to what is most important, namely, the structure of the algorithm and the appropriate extent of automation. Moreover, where there are resource constraints on the aggregation process, one must also consider what balance between volume of evidence and accuracy in the treatment of individual evidence best facilitates inference. There is no prerogative to aggregate the total evidence available if this would in fact reduce overall accuracy

Ludii -- The Ludemic General Game System

While current General Game Playing (GGP) systems facilitate useful research in Artificial Intelligence (AI) for game-playing, they are often somewhat specialised and computationally inefficient. In this paper, we describe the "ludemic" general game system Ludii, which has the potential to provide an efficient tool for AI researchers as well as game designers, historians, educators and practitioners in related fields. Ludii defines games as structures of ludemes -- high-level, easily understandable game concepts -- which allows for concise and human-understandable game descriptions. We formally describe Ludii and outline its main benefits: generality, extensibility, understandability and efficiency. Experimentally, Ludii outperforms one of the most efficient Game Description Language (GDL) reasoners, based on a propositional network, in all games available in the Tiltyard GGP repository. Moreover, Ludii is also competitive in terms of performance with the more recently proposed Regular Boardgames (RBG) system, and has various advantages in qualitative aspects such as generality.Comment: Accepted at ECAI 202