Development of an Instrument to Assess Individual Student Performance in Small Group Tutorials
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
Recognizing the need for a valid and reliable method to assess individual tutorial performance in a problem-based learning curriculum, we developed a 31-item instrument from theoretical frameworks and items used elsewhere. A scale was developed for each of three broad learning domains: self-directed learning (SDL), critical thinking (CT), and group process (GP). The instrument demonstrated high internal consistency (SDL = .88, CT = .90, GP = .83) on a sample of 18 tutors and 167 students. Tutor-student interrater reliability coefficients were estimated to be low (SDL = .16, CT = .18, GP = .14) due to lack of variance on the response scale. The instrument showed high correlation (r = .82) with other forms of summative evaluation. In its current form, this standardized and validated instrument is unreliable in differentiating strong from weak tutorial performance but can have a steering effect on student tutorial behaviors. The process of instrument development has general application to other educational programs.
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 | 0.002 | 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