Initial Use of the Perceptions of Assessment Tasks Inventory (PATI) in English Secondary Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Initial Use of the Perceptions of Assessment Tasks Inventory (PATI) in English Secondary SchoolsAs in most aspects of school life, students hold clear views on how they are assessed.Do assessments tasks connect with the learning activities of the classroom?Do the tasks relate to real-life situations?Despite these types of questions, few studies have ascertained systematically students' perceptions of assessment tasks.This article reports the results of a preliminary English study of students' perceptions of assessment tasks.In particular, this article introduces the Perceptions of Assessment Tasks Inventory (PATI: Dorman & Knightley, 2006) and uses data collected with it to group and describe students who hold similar views on assessment tasks.According to the OECD (2005), assessment is integral to the education process, with formative assessment shown to promote high student performance, equity in outcomes, and learning-to-learn skills.Assessment is also crucial to informing teachers about their work.Importantly, assessment that is genuinely integrated with teaching and learning enhances classroom teaching (Shepard, 2000).Despite these pronouncements, much school-based assessment remains rooted in an assessment of learning rather than an assessment for learning paradigm, an issue that has concerned the Assessment Reform Group (2002) in the United Kingdom.Assessment is often used by teachers and educational authorities to indicate the perceived quality of teaching.There is a belief that if the assessment process is improved, then the resultant learning will improve (Black & Wiliam, 1998).Historically, teachers have received substantial levels of supportive educational advice on assessment practices (Harlen, 1998).By contrast, ideologicallydriven politicians and educational bureaucrats have politicized assessment with many Western countries implementing widespread standardized testing procedures.In schools in the UK and Australia today, benchmarking, testing, and reporting to authorities assume great importance.
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 | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".