Comparative judgement methods are commonly used to explore standards in examination papers over time. However, studies are limited by a paucity of graded candidate scripts from previous years, as well as the expense and time required to standardise scripts. We present three studies that attempted, without the use of graded candidate scripts, to replicate and extend previous results about standards in mathematics examination papers. We found that re-typesetting examination papers into a consistent format was necessary, but that comparative judgement of examination papers without an archive of graded candidate scripts offered a reliable and efficient method for revealing relative demand over time. Our approach enables standards comparison where previously this was not possible. We found a reasonable correlation between judgments of actual student scripts and judgments of the items only, meaning that conclusions may be drawn about the demand of examination papers even when graded candidate scripts are not available.

The current study investigated whether: (1) using an interactive presentation (IP) platform could affect the amount of usage of the practices of making orchestrating mathematical discourse- sequencing and connecting students' responses. (2) using an interactive presentation (IP) platform could affect the amount of narratives constructed by students. Fifty seventh-grade students participated in the study; those students were divided into control and experimental groups. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed based on voice recordings and field notes. The results revealed that the teacher using (IP) asked nearly three times more questions that connected students’ responses (i.e., questions that involved valuing students' ideas, exploring students' answers, incorporating students’ background knowledge, and encouraging student-to-student communication). We also saw that the students participated in the learning processes. The students in the experimental group presented three times as many narratives as those in the control group. We present several excerpts from the transcripts of the classroom discussions to illustrate our findings. Discussion of the implications and limitations of these results and make recommendations based on those results.

In this study, a topic-based analysis of students’ academic performance in mathematics across specific topic areas in selected lower secondary schools in Rwanda was conducted. The research examined third-term exam scripts (2022-2023 and 2023-2024) of 267 Senior One (S1) and Senior Two (S2) students at Groupe Scolaire Rushara, Groupe Scolaire Sheli, and Groupe Scolaire Nyarugugu, along with data from their eight mathematics teachers. A quantitative approach was employed using ANOVA to compare students’ performance across five key mathematics topics: algebra, metric measurement, proportional reasoning, geometry, and statistics and probability. The findings revealed significant improvement in statistics and probability (p =.000, η² = 0.293) and geometry (p =.000, η² = 0.178) between S1 and S2 students. In contrast, metric measurement showed no significant difference (p =.234, η² = 0.003), while algebra demonstrated minimal improvement (p =.050, η² = 0.007). Proportional reasoning showed moderate progress (p =.000, η² = 0.057), although students continued to struggle with applying proportional relationships. These results indicate that while notable gains were made in some areas, others require targeted pedagogical interventions to improve students’ conceptual understanding and performance in mathematics. The study underscores the importance of adaptive teaching strategies, enhanced instructional materials, and a more student-centered approach to mathematics education in lower secondary schools in Rwanda.