MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163496223 · doi:10.1177/2056997121997156

Assessing Christian learning: Towards a practices-based approach to faith, vocation, and assessment

2021· article· en· W3163496223 on OpenAlexaff
David Smith, Beth Green, Mia Kurkechian, Albert Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Christianity & Education · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsTyndale University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFaithSociologyFocus groupChristian faithPedagogyEpistemologyPsychologyEngineering ethicsPhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay proposes that efforts at assessing the contribution of faith-based schools to faith formation be grounded in an account of student vocation framed by Christian practices. We identify gaps in research on assessment of school effectiveness and suggest that a focus on the present vocation of students may fruitfully connect faith and school-based learning practices. On this basis, we describe a framework for viewing assessment through a practices lens by identifying Christian practices that orient learning practices. We also briefly introduce the Practicing Faith Survey, a new tool based on this approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.392 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Christianity & EducationSame topicReligious Education and SchoolsFrench-language works237,207