Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through the results of a generalizability study, Heritage, Kim, Vendlinski & Herman (2009) show that teachers are better at determining the quality of student work than they are at deciding the next steps in instruction to support learning. The present research starts from this evidence and seeks to better understand the obstacles that limit teachers’ formative assessment decisions in writing. A questionnaire was used to help teachers determine the strengths and areas of need of their students’ work and to plan the next instructional steps to support learning. An individual retrospective interview was also used to better understand teachers’ thinking behind the answers they provided on the questionnaire. Content analysis was used to analyze questionnaire answers and interview transcriptions. Research results show that the formative assessment process is complex and multidimensional and raise fundamental questions regarding teachers’ professional knowledge and skills in this domain.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.202 | 0.292 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".