Pedagogies for Preservice Assessment Education: Supporting Teacher Candidates' Assessment Literacy Development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite assessment-based accountability movements throughout educational systems in the United States, teacher assessment literacy continues to be an identified area of concern. Contributing to this concern is a dearth of research on preservice assessment education including both its curricular and pedagogical approaches. The purpose of this study was to examine pedagogies that support positive changes in teacher candidates' conceptions of assessment. Drawing on open-ended questionnaire data from teacher candidate participants, this study found four explicit pedagogical constructs that teacher candidates identified as instrumental in contributing to their learning about assessment. Specifically, these constructs were: (a) perspective-building conversations, (b) praxis activities, (c) modeling, and (d) critical reflection and planning for learning. In addition to providing practical descriptive examples of each pedagogical approach, this article concludes with suggestions for future research and practice in assessment education.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it