Using Drawings to Assess Student Perceptions of Schoolyard Habitats: A Case Study of Reform-Based Research in the United States.
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
This case study describes the development and field-testing of a research-based scoring rubric for analyzing elementary students’ schoolyard habitat drawings. To justify schoolyard learning experiences in U.S. schools, teachers, program evaluators, and others need valid, reliable, and objective assessment tools for determining if, and how, these learning experiences influence students’ perceptions and understandings of ecological concepts. Three different raters used the 7-item rubric to evaluate 77 drawings. A high degree of inter-rater score reliability was found and no significant differences were found between scores of different raters. To determine if the rubric could detect measurable differences in drawings made by students of different genders, academic ability levels, and ethnicities, scores were compared and analyzed by subgroup. Results indicate that it is possible to develop a quantitative, easy-to-use tool for analyzing drawings and identifying differences in students’ perceptions of their schoolyard habitats.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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