Collaborating with teachers to design and implement assessments for self-regulated learning in the context of authentic classroom writing tasks
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
We present data from a larger longitudinal study, focusing on researchers’ and teachers’ collaborative design and implementation of assessments for learning (AfL), including student self-assessments, to support self-regulated learning (SRL) during classroom writing activities. We focus on students (N = 112) when they were in Grade 3. The study used a mixed method triangulation approach. Data include: detailed descriptions of classrooms with relatively high and low emphasis on SRL; students’ self-assessments of SRL; and students’ writing processes and products from a teacher-researcher co-constructed writing task. Students enrolled in classrooms with high emphases on SRL had more opportunities and support for SRL and AfL and, consequently, demonstrated more sophisticated self-assessments and higher levels of interest and task value than their peers in classrooms with low emphasis on SRL. Also, these learners demonstrated higher levels of self-regulation in writing tasks and higher quality writing products. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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