Teachers' Perceptions of Large-Scale Assessment Programs Within Low-Stakes Accountability Frameworks
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
The intent of this study was to examine the views of teachers regarding the appropriateness of the purposes and uses of the provincial assessments in Alberta and Ontario and the seriousness of the concerns raised about these assessments. These provinces represent educational jurisdictions that use large-scale assessments within a low-stakes accountability framework in which the results are intended to be used to support school-based improvement efforts. Despite being implemented at different times (1982–Alberta; 1996–Ontario), teachers in both provinces appear to hold relatively similar views about the testing programs in their own provinces and the issues associated with these programs. Teachers’ concerns regarding the use of these assessments for accountability purposes and the potential misuses of the results appear to be a dominant influence on teachers’ generally low ratings of other purposes and uses of the assessments in both provinces, including those related to improving instruction and learning.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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