Digital Dashboards for Summative Assessment and Indicators Misinterpretation: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decade, teachers in France have been increasingly pressured to use digital learning environments, and to shift from grade-based to skill-based assessment. Educational dashboards, which measure student input electronically, could foster such a transition by providing insights into learners’ performances. However, such dashboards could also foster data misinterpretation during the summative assessment process, should the indicators that they display be used without a proper understanding of what they reflect. This article presents a methodology to detect potential mistakes in the interpretation of the indicators in the context of inquiry-based learning. During the design of a learning environment, we analyzed, through analytics and classroom observations in primary and middle schools, the issues that could arise from the use of a dashboard. Our data suggest that the amount of information practitioners needed to collect to make indicators relevant was burdensome, making the dashboard unfit for assessment purposes at the scale of a classroom.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.052 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".