THE PARADOX OF CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT: A CHALLENGE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT. There are at least two very different conceptions of competence at play on the landscape of formal education, best defined in terms of what is known collectively and what is known subjectively. Teachers are forced to attend to each of these in their challenge to meet both the demands of a fixed school curriculum and the needs of the individual children with their varied understandings, backgrounds, and interests who make up a class. We outline these two contrasting notions of competence here, including their associated epistemological, pedagogical, psychological, and assessment implications. This approach shows how classroom assessment is caught in a paradox: it attempts to serve competing purposes that are intimately bound to alternative conceptions of competence. RESUME. Il existe au moins deux conceptions radicalement differentes de la competence dans le paysage de l'education formelle, que l'on pourrait definir sous l'angle de ce qui est connu collectivement et de ce qui est connu subjectivement. Les enseignants doivent en tenir compte afin de satisfaire a la fois aux exigences d'un cursus scolaire predetermine et aux besoins des differents eleves qui composent la classe, aux connaissances, antecedents et interets varies. Nous insistons ici sur ces deux conceptions opposees de la competence, notamment sur leurs repercussions connexes sur le plan de l'epistemologie, de la pedagogie, de la psychologie et de l'evaluation. Cette demarche demontre que l'evaluation en classe est un veritable paradoxe: elle cherche a atteindre des objectifs conflictuels qui sont intimement lies aux differentes conceptions de la competence.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".