The Enabling Constraints of Building an Assessment Pedagogy: Engaging Pre-service Teachers in a Professional Exploration of Current Conceptions of Classroom Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers’ assessment practices can influence students’ learning by supporting instruction and, more importantly, by developing students’ self-monitoring skills and regulation of their learning. Contemporary notions of classroom assessment have moved beyond the traditional concepts of formative and summative assessment. These contemporary approaches require teachers to reconceptualize their orientation towards teaching and learning. Pre-service teachers believe they require a teaching and assessment toolbox in order to be successful. Hence, they struggle to move beyond simplistic notions of learning and assessment. Our research examines how the concepts of “Enabling Constraints” and “Wicked Problems” guide our own teaching and research while also developing pre-service teachers’ own conceptions of professional learning within the context of current conceptions of classroom assessment. Surveys, discussions, and assessments of approximately 700 pre-service teachers’ thinking and reflections about classroom assessment collected as part of in-class assessment activities provide the research data. Descriptive and thematic analyses highlight our challenges and successes as we work to meet the learning needs of pre-service teachers, while also creating a context for ongoing professional learning that helps pre-service teachers move beyond a simplistic, primarily instrumental orientation towards teaching and classroom assessment. The operational constraints of the B.Ed program have required us to carefully examine how best accomplish these goals. The introduction of “Wicked problems” has helped to highlight the complex relationships between teaching and assessment and the need to develop an assessment pedagogy that integrates assessment practices and theories.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".