MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063009847 · doi:10.1002/ir.4

Improving Judgments About Teaching Effectiveness Using Teacher Rating Forms

2001· article· en· W2063009847 on OpenAlexaff
Philip C. Abrami

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Directions for Institutional Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummative assessmentProcess (computing)Computer scienceEvaluation methodsPsychologyManagement scienceMathematics educationProcess managementFormative assessmentBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter critically examines five issues surrounding the use of student evaluations of teaching for summative decisions: current practices, validity concerns, improving the reporting of results, improving the decision‐making process, and incorporating validity estimates into the decision‐making process. The author proposes that we can improve judgments by improving the precision of our measures.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.134
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.435
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1340.435
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.362
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations85
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Directions for Institutional ResearchSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207