The Use of Authentic Assessment to Report Accountability Data on Young Children’s Language, Literacy and Pre-math Competency
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
This validity study examined the validity of Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System, 2nd Edition (AEPS®), a curriculum-based, authentic assessment for infants and young children. The primary purposes were to: a) examine whether the AEPS® is a concurrently valid tool for measuring young children's language, literacy and pre-math skills for accountability purpose and b) explore teachers' perceptions on using authentic assessment and standardized tests. This was accomplished through implementing both quantitative and qualitative methods. Findings from the study indicated (a) the AEPS® is a concurrently valid (b) there were both advantages and disadvantages of using authentic assessment such as the AEPS® and using standardized tests based on teachers' perceptions, however, the practical issues of using the authentic measure can be addressed by providing in-depth trainings to teachers and increasing teachers' familiarity with their children; and (c) families preferred authentic assessment such as the AEPS® because it is easier.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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