Toward a Teacher Professional Learning Continuum in 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
Over the past 15 years, assessment for learning (AfL) has emerged as a key area of teacher practice with policy mandates around the world supporting teachers’ implementation of the underlying components of this pedagogical approach. While procedural and selective implementation of AfL strategies has been observed within research (i.e., implementing the letter of AfL), promoting a spirit of AfL appears far more challenging. There is a critical need to better understand how teachers develop AfL capacity within their practice to effectively cultivate a spirit of AfL in their classrooms. The purpose of this study was to describe a learning continuum for teachers’ implementation of AfL as based on data from 88 teachers. Specifically, interview and observational data were analyzed to describe five developmental stages demarcating shifts in teachers’ conceptual understandings and enacted AfL practices. The resulting learning continuum provides an empirical foundation for responsive teacher education that facilitates teachers’ continued learning toward more meaningful AfL implementation.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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