Students as stakeholders in assessment: how students perceive the value of an assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: For assessment to fill an educational role, students must see the results generated by assessment as valuable, and actively engage with this feedback in order to support learning. Few studies include examinees as stakeholders in validation beyond general notions of acceptability. Here, we explore students as stakeholders in the validation of a newly implemented assessment. METHODS: A student-relevant validity framework based on the unified theory of validity was created and adapted to a survey format. Likert-style items were used to examine first- and second-year medical students' perceptions of a new cumulative assessment, with several open-ended items. Analysis included: mean ratings per subscale of validity evidence, thematic analysis of comments, and a correlation between questionnaire subscores and exam performance. RESULTS: Seventy-seven students participated (20.5%). Student perceptions of the assessment were favourable, with significantly different ratings across validity evidence (Response Process (4.8 (SD = 0.7); scored/6), Content (4.6(0.9)), Consequential (4.4(0.8)), Internal Structure (4.2(0.9)), and Relationship to Other Variables (4.0(1.0))). Exam performance correlated with subscores for Relationship to Other Variables (r = 0.34, p < 0.005) and Response Process (r = 0.24, p < 0.05). DISCUSSION: Students perceived the assessment as facilitating learning, providing 'checkpoints', and were disappointed when it did not meet their expectations regarding the purpose of assessment. If students perceive that results do not reflect their future performance in clinical environments, or do not align with their perceived purpose of assessment, the educational value of assessment may be limited. It is critical to understand when, and how students engage in interpreting and integrating assessment-generated feedback to ensure that assessment contributes positively to learning.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".