Practices and Beliefs Relating to Authentic Assessment of Kindergarten Teachers in the Suburbs of Jerusalem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at investigating kindergarten teachers’ practices and beliefs relating to authentic assessment. The study also aimed at investigating differences in teachers’ practices and beliefs based on level of education, study major, and length of experience. The sample of the study consisted of (92) teachers working in kindergartens in the suburbs of Jerusalem. Two questionnaires were developed and implemented to collect the data of the study. In addition, individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 teachers from the sample of the study. Content analysis of some kindergarten documents was also used. The results showed that worksheets were the main method used to assess children learning, while project-based assessment was not used at all. In addition, the results showed significant differences in the teachers’ utilization of authentic assessment methods relating to level of education and study major, but there were no differences relating to the length of the teachers teaching experience. The teachers showed a strong belief in the importance of authentic assessment methods. The results of the interviews and content analysis supported the findings of the questionnaires. The study concluded a number of recommendations for future research, teacher educators and kindergarten principals.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".