MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2497420913 · doi:10.5539/ies.v9n8p51

The Investigation of the Effects of Authentic Assessment Approach on Prospective Teachers’ Problem-Solving Skills

2016· article· en· W2497420913 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicProblem Solving Skills Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuthentic assessmentPsychologyMathematics educationTest (biology)CurriculumClass (philosophy)Group workPedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="apa">The<strong> </strong>purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of authentic assessment, an approach used in Scientific Research Methods, on problem solving skills of prospective classroom teachers. The participant groups of the study consisted of sophomore prospective teachers who study at Dicle University in the Ziya Gökalp Education Faculty Classroom Teaching Department during 2013-2014 academic spring term. The two classrooms in the department were randomly assigned as experimental group (Group B) and control group (Group A). The experimental group was given authentic tasks and asked to do them group work. The authentic tasks fulfilled by prospective teachers were analyzed in accordance with the authentic assessment approach. Authentic assessment tools such as self-assessment, group assessment, portfolio assessment, teacher-peer assessment, weekly performance assessment, and student journals were used in the experimental group. Meanwhile, control group activities were based on a subject-oriented curriculum design and teacher-centered traditional practices and assessment were carried out. Methods like verbal lectures, discussions, and question-answers were used. In addition, the evaluation process was conducted on the mid-term exam essay in traditional sense. While the pre-test and post-test results of the experimental group indicate a statistically significant positive difference for the post-test, the difference between pre- and post-test results for the control groups were not found to be statistically significant. Moreover, a comparative analysis of adjusted post-test results based on pre-test results of experimental and control groups indicated a statistically significant positive difference in favor of experimental group.</p>

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.382 · 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