MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2397824374 · doi:10.59236/td2014vol7iss21213

How Am I Doing? Formative Feedback for Graduate Students Learning to Teach

2014· article· en· W2397824374 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransformative Dialogues Teaching and Learning Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentGraduate studentsPsychologyPeer feedbackPedagogyMedical educationMathematics educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As in all learning, feedback plays a key role in the development and improvement of professional skills including teaching (Cohen, 1980; Piccinin, 2007; Sadler, 1998).For graduate students learning to teach, feedback plays a critical role in identifying what to improve.Our aim is to explore the complex nature and sources of feedback that are desired for graduate students learning to teach at the university level.Based on largely qualitative data from student surveys and interviews, we identify five characteristics of feedback for institutions to consider in supporting the needs and experiences of graduate student teachers.To conclude, we discuss how a self-regulatory approach (Nicol & Marfarlane-Dick, 2006) could address these five characteristics including helping to enhance a supportive culture of feedback at departmental and institutional levels.

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.306 · 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