Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the impact of letter-grade evaluation systems on the stability of academic cognition by introducing the concept of "data aphasia," which describes the loss of diagnostic information due to mandated grading formats. Analyzing data from 68 mathematics exams taken by 75 primary school students, the authors employ an institutional counterfactual simulation method to convert percentage scores into letter grades, revealing a significant decrease in information entropy by 69% and a notable decline in diagnostic identity consistency. The findings suggest that while the letter-grade system appears stable at first glance, it actually introduces substantial cognitive costs and variability, prompting the authors to propose a dual-track evaluation mechanism to mitigate these effects.
The letter-grade system may mask critical insights into student performance, leading to a staggering 69% loss in diagnostic information and significant instability in academic assessments.
Does the letter-grade evaluation system, while achieving its burden-reduction goals, affect the education system's stable understanding of students'academic structures? This paper introduces the concept of"data aphasia,"referring to restrictions on diagnostic information expression caused by institutionally mandated forms of data presentation. Using data from 68 mathematics examinations administered to 75 primary school students, we employ an institutional counterfactual simulation method to convert percentage scores into A/B/C/D letter grades and conduct systematic tests at the information, structural, and diagnostic levels. Results show that information entropy decreases by approximately 69% after grade conversion; under the full sample, the letter-grade system appears superficially stable (K=4), but removing a single extreme anchor student causes the optimal K to increase from 4 to 8 and individual diagnostic identity consistency to fall from 95% to 62%; temporal consistency fluctuates between 52% and 96%, far below the 93%-96% baseline of the percentage system. Mechanism analysis indicates that discretization compresses the feature space by approximately nineteenfold across 68 examinations; after standardization, it creates extensive pseudo-heterogeneity regions, flattens density gradients, and makes clustering boundaries highly sensitive to minor perturbations. Based on these findings, this paper proposes a dual-track evaluation mechanism and provides a testable analytical framework for understanding the cognitive costs of educational evaluation reform.
