MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910439838 · doi:10.20381/ruor-22955

Large-scale Assessment and Mathematics Teacher Practice: A Case Study with Ontario Grade 9 Applied Teachers

2019· dissertation· en· W2910439838 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ina Lazarescu

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationScale (ratio)PedagogyMathematicsPsychologyGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This qualitative study examines the connections between teachers’ views of large-scale assessment and their classroom practice, based on a case study of Ontario teachers and the Ontario Education Quality and Accountability Office [EQAO] Grade 9 Applied Assessment of Mathematics. Large-scale assessments are a prominent aspect of the Ontario education system; given that they are also mandatory, it is imperative that their impact on teaching be documented. This study enriches the existing literature on the topic of the Grade 9 EQAO Assessment of Mathematics, and provides a more-recent portrayal of the teachers’ views of this assessment and the potential impact of these views on classroom teaching by highlighting teacher attitudes, concerns, and classroom practices.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Same topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207