MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292772413 · doi:10.3102/1443120

Large-Scale Assessment in Mathematics: The Relationship Between Teachers' Views and Classroom Practice

2019· article· en· W4292772413 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ina Lazarescu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 2019 AERA Annual Meeting · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)Mathematics educationComputer scienceMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This qualitative study examines the connections between teachers' views of largescale assessment and their classroom practice, based on a case study of Ontario teachers and the Ontario Education Quality and Accountability Office [EQAO] Grade 9 Applied Assessment of Mathematics. Large-scale assessments are a prominent aspect of the Ontario education system; given that they are also mandatory, it is imperative that their impact on teaching be documented. This study enriches the existing literature on the topic of the Grade 9 EQAO Assessment of Mathematics, and provides a more-recent portrayal of the teachers' views of this assessment and the potential impact of these views on classroom teaching by highlighting teacher attitudes, concerns, and classroom practices.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.324 · 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.

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the 2019 AERA Annual MeetingSame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207