A Study of Opportunities and Threats of Descriptive Assessment from Managers, Teachers and Experts Points of View in Chaharmahal and Bakhteyari Primary Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of current study is to determine the strength and weakness of executing descriptive evaluation from the viewpoint of deans, teachers and experts of Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province. A survey descriptive approach was performed. Statistical population includes 208 deans, 303 teachers, and 100 executive experts of descriptive evaluation scheme in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province in educational year 1387-88. Sample’s volume after some statistical estimation calculated to be 175, and members of the sample were selected by random sampling of a category proportional to the selected volume, that contains 100 teachers, 50 deans and 25 experts. To identify the justifiability of the inventory, opinions of twelve persons including advisor professor, consulting professor, designer of the descriptive evaluation scheme, four of educational planning department professors and five of experts holding masters and Ph.D. degrees that are executives of the scheme in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari, were used. Measurement tools included: 1) documents including reports, regulations and documents related to the running of this plan; 2) interviews conducted to use the opinions of experts in doing descriptive evaluation; 3) a self-administrated questionnaire including 4 items and 74 close–ended questions, and open – ended ones. For analyzing the data produced by inventory, we used SPSS-13 to analyze the data in two levels of descriptive and inferential. We also have used single variable t-test, independent t-test, one-way analysis of variance, and least significant difference (LSD) tests. Results showed that the executives of descriptive evaluation scheme in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province evaluate the so called scheme above average regarding to four scales (strength and weakness). Key words: Chaharmahal; Bakhteyari; Opportunities; Threats; Primary school
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".