The Role of Authentic Assessment Tasks in Problem-Based 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
Problem-based Learning (PBL) has long been touted as an effective pedagogical approach in higher education to promote students’ authentic learning. As a learner-centered pedagogy, PBL is characterized by students working collaboratively in small groups to solve messy, ill-structured problems that mirror real-world problems encountered by expert professionals in the field. Students are also expected to engage in self-directed learning. PBL instructors play a pivotal role as facilitators of learning. Authentic assessment is deemed to be a viable method in PBL-oriented courses because of its focus on real-world problems. However, little is known about how instructors in higher education institutions perceive the importance of and their satisfaction in using authentic assessment in PBL-oriented courses. Specifically, what instructional decisions do they make to guide their students to use authentic assessment tasks to promote assessment for learning and assessment as learning? In this paper, we reported on instructors’ perspectives of using authentic assessment tasks to engage first-year student teachers in an assessment course.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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