Investigating student perspectives on alternate final assessment approaches in upper-level physics courses
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
Abstract During the pandemic, traditional final assessments in the form of in-person, timed, invigilated final examinations were not an option. As a result, in the academic years 2020/2021 and 2021/2022, students in the second year Electricity and Magnetism courses at the University of Guelph were asked to complete personalized study guides/portfolios as a means of communicating to the instructor what they had learned in the course. Although research has shown that portfolio-style assessment procedures support student achievement at least at the same level as traditional assessment procedures and appear to have additional benefits, they have not been widely adopted in the physical sciences. The goal of this work was to assess some of the affective consequences of using portfolio assessment procedures in an upper-level core physics course. Feedback from students, both in the form of an online anonymous survey as well as a more in-depth, in-person, focus group discussion, was positive. The general consensus was that students found the portfolios to be similar in workload to preparing for a final examination but offered additional benefits such as finding them to be significantly less stressful as well as feeling a greater sense of accomplishment after submission. Learning outcomes of the course were achieved through this approach at similar levels as seen previously, as demonstrated through student performance on the pre- and post-conceptual assessment, and further evidenced by the high-level example problems included here from student submissions. Grades earned on the portfolios were similar to those seen previously with invigilated traditional final examinations. Based on these findings, portfolio assessments will remain a core component of the pedagogical toolbox employed by faculty in physics at the University of Guelph. This project was reviewed by the Research Ethics Board at the University of Guelph for compliance with federal guidelines for research involving human participants. Approval was granted on 11 January 2023, REB # 22–11-004.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it