Using Epistemic Emotions to Support Canadian Pre-Service Teachers Learning about Classroom Assessment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students feel epistemic emotions like surprise or frustration when they encounter content that conflicts with their beliefs or previous knowledge in a way that can facilitate or hinder learning. Pre-service teachers may find that professional perspectives on assessment conflict with their previous knowledge of assessment, creating epistemic emotions. The purpose of this research was to evaluate how frustration, curiosity, and surprise felt during two learning experiences related to self-reported learning of assessment and application to practice. N = 205 pre-service teachers consented for their responses to questions associated with two learning activities to be analyzed. Participants reported experiencing moderate levels of curiosity in both activities, but one garnered more frustration and the other more surprise. Frustration was negatively associated with self-reported learning and application. Whereas, curiosity and surprise had statistically significant positive associations with the outcomes. We discuss the role of epistemic emotions in learning about assessment and offer recommendations for instructors.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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 it