How do young students with different profiles of reading skill mastery, perceived ability, and goal orientation respond to holistic diagnostic feedback?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One critical issue with cognitive diagnostic assessment (CDA) lies in its lack of research evidence that shows how diagnostic feedback from CDA is interpreted and used by young students. This mixed methods research examined how holistic diagnostic feedback (HDF) is processed by young learners with different profiles of reading skills, goal orientations, and perceived ability. HDF provides three learner profiles: learners’ current skill mastery levels; self-assessed skill proficiency; and goal orientations. It also has a section for plans for future learning. A total of 44 Grades 5 and 6 students (aged 11–12) from two classrooms, their parents and teacher received individually customized HDF reports. Students’ reading skill mastery profiles were determined based on the application of cognitive diagnostic modeling to their performance on a provincial reading achievement measure, while their perceived ability and goal orientation profiles were created by using self-assessment and goal-orientation questionnaires. Students and parents provided written responses to their HDF reports. The study findings show the dynamic influence of young students’ profiles on the ways in which they perceive, interpret and use HDF. Students’ responses to diagnostic feedback did not differ substantially across reading mastery levels; however, psychological factors most strongly impacted the efficacy of learner feedback processing. Furthermore, the result that it was not students’ actual goal orientations but their perceived parent goal orientations that showed significant relationships with their skill mastery levels strongly indicates that young students’ responses to HDF are likely to be influenced by broader learning environments, and such influences are further filtered through their own perceptions. Understanding students’ interactions with diagnostic feedback is critical for maximizing its effect because their perceptions about ability and orientations to learning strongly influence the ways in which they process diagnostic feedback on their 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".