Critical Education: Increasing Student Achievement through Formative Assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Organizational Improvement Plan (OIP) supports the use of formative assessment practices within the business department at School X. This organization is a public high school situated in an urban school board in Ontario. Bayside School Board mandates that teachers provide all students with equitable assessment practices and student-centred learning opportunities. Transformational leadership, through a critical lens, will propel a change plan to inform teachers about the oppressive nature of using summative assessments. Through Freire’s (2002) concept of critical pedagogy, a case is made to implement more opportunities for using formative assessments, which allow students to feel empowered. Formative assessments can allow students to become critical thinkers and become inspired to change their community. To help diagnose the organization’s willingness to change, I use Cawsey et al.’s (2016) change readiness questionnaire in conjunction with a force field analysis. Once a critical organizational analysis is conducted, Duck’s (2001) five-stage Change Curve will be used to provide a framework for implementing change. Gentile’s (2010) Giving Voice to Values (GVV) leadership approach is used to propel change by empowering teachers and encouraging them to use formative assessment to help empower students. In addition, a campaign to inform the school about critical pedagogy will be the starting step to ignite change in teachers’ assessment practices. Teacher collaboration, empowerment, and resource sharing will enable the creation of an educational community that views formative assessments as an optional approach to promote social justice within School X.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".