MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1825023912

Using Large-scale Assessments to Determine Student Grades

2013· article· en· W1825023912 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Tess Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)TweakingPsychologyMathematics educationMedical educationGuidelineMedicineComputer scienceGeographyCartography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many Canadian provinces provide guidelines for teachers to incorporate a percentage of students’ score from provincial large-scale assessments with students’ term score to determine final grades. This practice was examined as well as other ways teachers in which large-scale assessment was influencing teaching. Questionnaires were distributed to teachers and follow-up interviews were conducted. Findings revealed that teachers do not entirely endorse the practice but appeared to be applying the guideline while at the same time tweaking student scores as needed to ensure all students receive a passing grade (50%) in their course. Further, teachers were drawing from the large-scale assessment instrument to guide their instruction and assessment practices.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducationSame topicEducational Assessment and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207