MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2519412911 · doi:10.1080/00220671.2015.1118005

Assessment in play-based kindergarten classrooms: An empirical study of teacher perspectives and practices

2016· article· en· W2519412911 on OpenAlexaffabout
Angela Pyle, Christopher DeLuca

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Educational Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative Teaching and Inclusion
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityPsychologyMathematics educationPedagogyEarly childhood educationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kindergarten education is changing. Current reforms have increased accountability structures requiring teachers to integrate assessments throughout their instruction to support academic learning while retaining developmentally appropriate pedagogies such as play-based learning. Despite these reforms, comparatively little research has been conducted on teachers' assessment practices within play-based instructional contexts. The purpose of this study was to explore teachers' approaches to assessment in play-based kindergarten education and specifically to examine how assessment practices differed based on teachers' conceptions of the purpose of play in student learning. Data were obtained from 77 Ontario kindergarten teachers via (a) an electronic survey, (b) in-depth interviews, and (c) classroom observations. Overall, data from this study suggest a misalignment in teachers' perspectives of the purpose of play and what teachers assess during periods of play.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.384 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations65
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicCollaborative Teaching and InclusionFrench-language works237,207