The Centrality of Cognitively Diagnostic Assessment for Advancing Secondary School ESL Students' Writing: A Mixed Methods Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The primary purpose of this investigation was to examine the effects of cognitively diagnostic feedback (CDF) on secondary school English as a second language (ESL) students' writing development using a validity framework. CDF is information that is generated by diagnosing gaps in learners' cognitive processing and strategy use in a specific domain, to guide learners towards desired goals. A diagnostic rubric for assessing writing (DRAW) was developed through an iterative process involving teachers and students, founded in both theory and curriculum, and used to generate CDF. Key validity assumptions were identified related to the use of DRAW in secondary school classrooms. These assumptions were used to generate inquiry questions that guided the investigation addressing the diagnostic potential of DRAW, the effect of students' perceptions of DRAW feedback on their writing development, the interaction between students' perceptions of DRAW feedback and their goal orientations, anxiety, and self-efficacy, and the influence of teachers on students' use of feedback. Using a mixed methods research design, evidence was gathered from three Grade 10 classrooms comprising a total of 52 ESL learners and their teachers. DRAW was used to generate CDF providing students with strengths and areas for improvement on their ideas, vocabulary, grammar, organization, mechanics, and sentence fluency. Students' perceived understanding, reflection, perceived usefulness, and intent for future use of the CDF were measured through a survey and structured interviews. Students' use of the CDF was evaluated across writing samples at multiple times, and examined in relation to their goal orientations, writing anxiety and self-efficacy. Teachers' use of DRAW was also evaluated through observations and interviews. Multiple sources of evidence were used to warrant claims about DRAW practice: 1) DRAW provided cognitively, diagnostically rich information about adolescent students' writing compared to competing feedback sources used in these classrooms; 2) Students' perceptions of DRAW feedback varied according to self-efficacy, writing anxiety, and goal orientations; 3) DRAW feedback had a positive effect on students' writing skill development; 4) Teachers' assessment beliefs and feedback practices influenced and shaped students' perceptions and use of feedback and contributed to their writing performance; and 5) Teachers valued DRAW.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,037 | 0,086 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».