Victorius vs Dionysius: the Irish Easter controversy of AD 689

Over the past few decades, the early medieval Easter controversy has increasingly been portrayed as a conflict between the ‘Celtic’ and the ‘Roman’ churches, limiting the geographical extent of this most vibrant debate to Britain and Ireland (with the exception of the disputes caused by Columbanus’ appearance on the Continent). Both are not the case. Before c.AD 800, there was no unanimity within the ‘Roman’ cause. Two ‘Roman’ Easter reckonings existed, which could not be reconciled, one invented by Victorius of Aquitaine in AD 457, the other being the Alexandrian system as translated into Latin by Dionysius Exiguus in AD 525. The conflict between followers of Victorius and adherents of Dionysius occurred in Visigothic Spain first, reached Ireland in the second half of the 7th century, and finally dominated the intellectual debate in Francia in the 8th century. This article will focus on the Irish dimension of this controversy. It is argued that the southern Irish clergy introduced the Victorian reckoning in the AD 630s and strictly adhered to that system until the end of the 7th century. When Adomnan, the abbot of Iona, converted to Dionysius in the late AD 680s and convinced most of the northern Irish churches to follow his example, this caused considerable tension with southern Irish followers of Victorius, as is impressively witnessed by the computistical literature of the time, especially the texts produced in AD 689. From this literature, the issues debated at the time are reconstructed. This analysis has serious consequences for how we read Irish history towards the end of the 7th century; rather than bringing the formerly ‘Celtic’ northern Irish clergy in line with southern Irish ‘Roman’ practise, Adomnan added a new dimension to the conflict.

Improving E-Assessment Systems With A focus On Adaptive Feedback And Marking

Institutions involved in the provision of tertiary education across Europe are feeling the pinch. European universities, and other higher education (HE) institutions, must operate in a climate where the pressure of government spending cuts (Garben, 2012) is in stark juxtaposition to the EU’s strategy to drive forward and maintain a growth of student numbers in the sector (eurostat, 2015).

In order to remain competitive, universities and HE institutions are making ever-greater use of electronic assessment (E-Assessment) systems (Chatzigavriil et all, 2015; Ferrell, 2012). These systems are attractive primarily because they offer a cost-effect and scalable approach for assessment. In addition to scalability, they also offer reliability, consistency and impartiality; furthermore, from the perspective of a student they are most popular because they can offer instant feedback (Walet, 2012).

There are disadvantages, though.

First, feedback is often returned to a student immediately on competition of their assessment. While it is possible to disable the instant feedback option (this is often the case during an end of semester exam period when assessment scores must be can be ratified before release), however, this option tends to be a global ‘all on’ or ‘all off’ configuration option which is controlled centrally rather than configurable on a per-assessment basis.

If a formative in-term assessment is to be taken by multiple groups of
students, each at different times, this restriction means that answers to each question will be disclosed to the first group of students undertaking the assessment. As soon as the answers are released “into the wild” the academic integrity of the assessment is lost for subsequent student groups.

Second, the style of feedback provided to a student for each question is often limited to a simple ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ indicator. While this type of feedback has its place, it often does not provide a student with enough insight to improve their understanding of a topic that they did not answer correctly.

Most E-Assessment systems boast a wide range of question types including Multiple Choice, Multiple Response, Free Text Entry/Text Matching and Numerical questions. The design of these types of questions is often quite restrictive and formulaic, which has a knock-on effect on the quality of feedback that can be provided in each case.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) are most prevalent as they are the most prescriptive and therefore most the straightforward to mark consistently. They are also the most amenable question types, which allow easy provision of meaningful, relevant feedback to each possible outcome chosen.
Text matching questions tend to be more problematic due to their free text entry nature. Common misspellings or case-sensitivity errors can often be accounted for by the software but they are by no means fool proof, as it is very difficult to predict in advance the range of possible variations on an answer that would be considered worthy of marks by a manual marker of a paper based equivalent of the same question.

Numerical questions are similarly restricted. An answer can be checked for accuracy or whether it is within a certain range of the correct answer, but unless it is a special purpose-built mathematical E-Assessment system the system is unlikely to have computational capability and so cannot, for example, account for “method marks” which are commonly awarded in paper-based marking.

From a pedagogical perspective, the importance of providing useful formative feedback to students at a point in their learning when they can benefit from the feedback and put it to use must not be understated (Grieve et all, 2015; Ferrell, 2012).

In this work, we propose a number of software-based solutions, which will overcome the limitations and inflexibilities of existing E-Assessment systems.

People and places: Understanding geographical accuracy in administrative data from the census and healthcare systems

Administrative systems such as health care registration are of increasing importance in providing information for statistical, research, and policy purposes. There is thus a pressing need to understand better the detailed relationship between population characteristics as recorded in such systems and conventional censuses. This paper explores these issues using the unique Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study (NILS). It takes the 2001 Census enumeration as a benchmark and analyses the social, demographic and spatial patterns of mismatch with the health register at individual level. Descriptive comparison is followed by multivariate and multilevel analyses which show that approximately 25% of individuals are reported to be in different addresses and that age, rurality, education, and housing type are all important factors. This level of mismatch appears to be maintained over time, as earlier migrants who update their address details are replaced by others who have not yet done so. In some cases, apparent mismatches seem likely to reflect complex multi-address living arrangements rather than data error.