The simplest explanation of value added is added value. In other words, it takes into consideration a given state of existence for a specified time period and measures improvement. For example, you've most likely have added on some weight and height since you were five. The same concept applies to added value.
In terms of University grading, value added is taken into account when it comes to grading. For example, in many classes the final exam will account for 50%+ of the total score. This shows bias towards the "end-product". Thus someone who didn't apply themselves that much (low value) could study very hard for the final exam (huge added value) in order to pass the class with a decent score. On another hand, someone who always applied themselves (high value) could put in a mediocore amount of time (burned out, comfortable with material because they've been constantly studying, confident, low expectations) and receive a mediocore score (decrease in added value) causing them to receive a lower score then expected.
Of course there are benefits to the value added system. Some students don't realize initial concepts to subjects such as advanced physics or calculus until they learn later material or review the basics in their spare time. Thus when they work hard throughout the year and come time for the finals, they finally have a "Eureka!" moment and really grasp the core concepts. In such circumstances it is unfortunate that their final epitome will not have larger implications when it comes to overall understand of the material. After all, if you understand it in the end, the intermediate confusion and lack of understanding should not matter.
In terms of University grading, value added is taken into account when it comes to grading. For example, in many classes the final exam will account for 50%+ of the total score. This shows bias towards the "end-product". Thus someone who didn't apply themselves that much (low value) could study very hard for the final exam (huge added value) in order to pass the class with a decent score. On another hand, someone who always applied themselves (high value) could put in a mediocore amount of time (burned out, comfortable with material because they've been constantly studying, confident, low expectations) and receive a mediocore score (decrease in added value) causing them to receive a lower score then expected.
Of course there are benefits to the value added system. Some students don't realize initial concepts to subjects such as advanced physics or calculus until they learn later material or review the basics in their spare time. Thus when they work hard throughout the year and come time for the finals, they finally have a "Eureka!" moment and really grasp the core concepts. In such circumstances it is unfortunate that their final epitome will not have larger implications when it comes to overall understand of the material. After all, if you understand it in the end, the intermediate confusion and lack of understanding should not matter.
When it comes to evaluation, do you believe in the use of value-added systems? Do you believe in better alternatives?