MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288795982 · doi:10.18806/tesl.v32i0.1215

Building Teachers’ Assessment Capacity for Supporting English Language Learners Through the Implementation of the STEP Language Assessment in Ontario K-12 Schools

2016· article· en· W2288795982 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Saskia Stille, Eunice Eunhee Jang, Maryam Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenueTESL Canada Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEllChristian ministryPsychologyMathematics educationLanguage proficiencyPedagogyEnglish languageSociologyTeaching methodPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ontario Ministry of Education recently implemented the Steps to English Proficiency (STEP) language assessment framework to build educator capacity for addressing the needs of English language learners (ELLs) in K-12 schools. The STEP framework is a set of descriptors-based language pro ciency scales that specify observable linguistic behaviours from which educators can make inferences about students’ English language development. Teachers use these proficiency scales to assess, document, and track students’ language pro ciency development based on daily interactions with students in classrooms. The purpose of this article is to report on teachers’ perceptions of and experiences with the STEP proficiency scales during a three-year pilot implementation and validation study of the initiative. Based on analysis of these ndings, we articulate implications for building teachers’ assessment capacity using observational language assessment scales for K-12 ELLs. Le Ministère de l’Éducation de l’Ontario a récemment mis sur pied un cadre d’évaluation des compétences linguistiques (Steps to English Proficiency - STEP) pour accroitre la capacité des enseignants à répondre aux besoins des apprenants d’anglais dans les écoles K-12. Le cadre STEP est un ensemble d’échelles de compétences linguistiques basées sur des descripteurs qui décrivent des comportements linguistiques à partir desquels les enseignants peuvent faire des inférences quant au développement des élèves en anglais. Les enseignants se servent de ces échelles de compétence pour évaluer, documenter et suivre le déve- loppement langagier de leurs élèves dans leurs interactions quotidiennes avec les élèves en classe. L’objectif de cet article est de faire état des perceptions et des expériences des enseignants relatives aux échelles de compétences STEP pendant les trois années de la phase de mise en oeuvre initiale et d’étude de la validité de l’initiative. Nous nous appuyons sur les résultats de notre analyse pour formu- ler des implications relatives à l’accroissement de la capacité des enseignants par l’emploi des échelles de compétences linguistiques auprès d’apprenants d’anglais en K-12.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTESL Canada JournalSame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207