MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204027159

Implications of Standardized Testing in Teacher Education: A Look at Perceptions, Experiences and Impacts on Teacher Candidates

2020· article· en· W3204027159 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katrina Carbone, Michelle Searle

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandardized testCertificationPsychologyTeacher educationMedical educationPerceptionTeacher preparationTest (biology)Mathematics educationAccreditationGovernment (linguistics)PedagogyMedicinePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2019, the provincial government in Ontario released an announcement indicating all teacher candidates, regardless of their specialization or teachable subject areas, would be required to take a standardized math test in order to become certified to teach. This decision has implications for teacher candidates and the way they think about and experience assessment and evaluation.  Assessment and evaluation are essential constructs in a teacher education program, because strong classroom-based assessment practices could have an impact on student learning and performance (Volante & Fazio, 2007). While standardized assessments exist outside of teacher education (e.g. university admissions exams), they are known to produce anxiety for students (Volante & Fazio, 2007). However, the impact these tests have on preservice teachers enrolled in education programs is not known. There is an urgent need to understand the perceptions, experiences, and impact of standardized testing on teacher candidates currently enrolled in Ontario teacher education programs.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207