Using the Ecology and Evolution‐Measuring Achievement and Progression in Science assessment to measure student thinking across the Four‐Dimensional Ecology Education framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The newly developed Four‐Dimensional Ecology Education (4 DEE ) framework, produced by the Ecological Society of America, provides updated guidance for undergraduate instruction. To help instructors align their courses to this framework and assess student progress toward its goals, we have recoded the comprehensive programmatic assessment Ecology and Evolution‐Measuring Achievement and Progression in Science (EcoEvo‐ MAPS ) and reanalyzed a national dataset of over 2000 undergraduate student responses. Here, we show how the EcoEvo‐ MAPS questions align to the 4 DEE framework and provide student performance data across the dimensions and elements. We also include information from student interviews to help inspire educators to develop new lessons, additional assessment questions, and other course materials in these areas. Finally, we provide information on a new web‐based portal that allows instructors to easily administer EcoEvo‐ MAPS to students and receive an automatically generated score report that aligns results to the 4 DEE framework.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".