Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Classroom assessment, and formative assessment in particular, has garnered much attention in assessment research over the last 15 years.Specifically, this research speaks to the benefits of formative assessment in improving student learning and achievement (e.g., Shepard, 2000;Wiliam, 2007).Assessment practices have typically been researched in traditional school and classroom contexts, but as student needs evolve, there are an increasing number of students seeking educational opportunities in on-line, alternative, and outreach school environments.While research in these contexts exists (e.g., Barbour & Hill, 2011; Grossman & Kanu, 1999;Shields & Larocque, 1998), a specific focus on assessment practices in these contexts is absent.This paper reports on a study exploring summative and formative assessment practices in outreach schools in Alberta, which are described as providing "an educational alternative for junior and senior high school students who, due to individual circumstances, find that traditional school settings do not meet their needs" (Alberta Education, 2009, p. 1).Two questions guided the research: 1) What assessment practices are being utilized in outreach schools in Alberta, and 2) Do these practices reflect appropriate assessment practices as described in the research literature (see Brookhart & Nitko, 2008;Dietel, Herman, & Knuth, 1991;Nichols, Meyers, & Burling, 2009)?An online survey was administered to 85 outreach teachers across Alberta, with 66 surveys fully completed.Respondents were from both rural and urban outreach schools from 36 school divisions.The survey consisted of 21 selected response questions, with the opportunity for respondents to provide further clarification to their responses to each question.Survey questions focused on program demographics (e.g., "How many teachers are on site dedicated to your school's outreach program?," and "What is the average number of students enrolled in your school's outreach program?") and information pertaining to the process used to evaluate student progress (e.g., "In general, how are outreach student's final grades calculated in the outreach program?," and "Are students able to resubmit assignments/tests/quizzes/projects based on feedback given by the teachers?").Descriptive statistics were calculated from the selected response questions, and anecdotal information provided by the respondents was used alongside the selected response question data to provide further elaboration on the numerical data.Results from the survey indicate that the types of summative assessments used consisted mostly of assignments, tests, and final exams, with projects and other assessment tools used less frequently.Sixty-one percent of respondents indicated that in general, assignments, projects, other tests, and a final examination were used to calculate students' final grade.Twenty-two percent of respondents indicated that final grades consisted of assignments and a final exam.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».