MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessing Science Inquiry

2012· book-chapter· en· W2481621308 on OpenAlexaff
Jody Clarke‐Midura, Jillianne Code, Nick Zap, Chris Dede

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummative assessmentPsychologyMathematics educationProcess (computing)Inquiry-based learningCognitionPedagogyComputer scienceFormative assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Science inquiry is a cognitive process that depends upon the active engagement of students and is something that students do and is minds-on. However, given its active nature, assessing science inquiry process skills remains a challenge for educators. In this chapter, the authors describe research being carried out to develop Virtual Performance Assessments (VPAs) that measure science inquiry practices. They provide a case study of how VPAs are being used to design summative assessments that measure middle school students’ scientific inquiry aligned with national standards. The goal is to provide educators with a model of how they can assess science inquiry skills in their classrooms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.008
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in educational technologies and instructional design book seriesSame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207