Walking Our Talk About Assessment With Preservice Teachers
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
In this reflective study, six members of a Faculty of Education implemented or adapted research-informed assessment practices in their university Bachelor of Education teaching. These practices included aligning university course outcomes to assessment, separating achievement on university course outcomes from achievement of non-academic outcomes, collaboratively creating achievement indicators for provincial curriculum outcomes, co-constructing criteria with university students for assignments, setting up opportunities with university students for peer feedback before an assignment is submitted for marking, and administering and marking a test according to research-suggested practices. This article describes the implementation of these practices and analyzes the challenges and successes experienced as these teacher educators strove to model assessment practices that are expected of preservice teachers when they enter the profession. The primary goal of implementation was to increase congruence between teaching and practice in terms of assessment. Keywords: assessment; preservice teacher learning; self-study
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 | 0.000 |
| 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