Calibrating the Difficulty of an Assessment Tool: The Blooming of a Statistics Examination
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
Bloom's taxonomy is proposed as a tool by which to assess the level of complexity of assessment tasks in statistics. Guidelines are provided for how to locate tasks at each level of the taxonomy, along with descriptions and examples of suggested test questions. Through the “Blooming” of an examination – that is, locating its constituent parts on Bloom's taxonomy - the difficulty level of an examination paper in statistics can be pseudo-objectively assessed, via both its Bloom's Index and the proportion of marks allocated to higher order cognitive skills. One suggested application of the approach is in assessing the impact on student learning due to course transformations implemented incrementally over time. Assessment tools, in particular examination papers, can be compared for difficulty and student performance. A case study is provided in which examinations from an introductory course are Bloomed post-hoc and compared to student performances.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| 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