Putting Students at the Centre of Classroom L2 Writing Assessment
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
In many educational contexts, L2 writing assessment tends to emphasize its summative functions (i.e., assessment of learning – AoL) more than its formative potential (i.e., assessment for – AfL). While the teacher plays a dominant role in AoL, central to AfL is the role of the students, alongside that of the teacher and peers. A student-centred approach to L2 writing assessment involves learners actively in setting goals, monitoring their progress, and deciding how to address the gaps in their learning. Such a focus, also referred to as assessment as learning (AaL), puts students at the centre of classroom assessment. In the L2 writing literature, however, descriptions and explanations about how AaL can be implemented in the writing classroom are scant. This article attempts to provide a clear understanding of AaL and how a student-centred approach to classroom assessment can be applied in the L2 writing classroom, thus contributing new knowledge to the existing literature on classroom L2 writing assessment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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