Student perspectives on assessment for learning
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
ABSTRACT Assessment for learning (AfL) has become a widespread approach across many educational systems. To date, AfL research has emphasized teachers’ knowledge, skills, and practices, with few studies examining students’ responses to an AfL pedagogical approach. The purpose of this research was to focus directly on students’ perspectives on their use and value of AfL approaches through a survey of 1079 K–12 students and portfolio‐based interviews with 12 purposefully selected students. Survey data were analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistics across grade levels. Interview data were analyzed using standard thematic coding processes. Students most frequently used and valued teacher feedback and success criteria to support their learning. Peer feedback was the least valued AfL approach for all students. Some significant differences between grade levels were noted. Our results suggest that using AfL approaches is a learned behaviour; students need to be explicitly taught about AfL concepts, terminology, and use over time. This study also highlights that AfL implementation requires sustained focus, research, and support in schools and classrooms for students to value and fully benefit from assessment‐based teaching.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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