Conceptions of classroom assessment and approaches to grading: teachers’ and students’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classroom assessment and grading play central roles in education, with important impacts on teachers and students. This study examined the interactions between Canadian teachers’ and students’ conceptions of assessment and approaches to grading. 219 teachers and students completed a survey with two scales: Teachers’ Conceptions of Assessment (TCOA) and Teachers’ Approaches to Grading (TAG). Factor analysis of the TCOA scale showed four factors: assessment to improve teaching and learning, negative or irrelevant assessment, assessment for student and school accountability, and inaccurate assessment. Analysis of the TAG survey also showed four factors: social-emotional pressures for grade increases/changes, situational considerations for grade increases/changes, contextual-based grading, and achievement-based grading. Discriminant analysis showed that four out of these eight factors from the two scales had the strongest effects on teachers’ and students’ membership in their respective groups. The results contribute to a more complete understanding of assessment cultures as conceived by teachers and students.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".