Self‐ and peer‐assessment in upper secondary schools. A quasi‐experimental study to investigate the educational effectiveness of formative 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
Abstract The assessment of student learning represents a key component of daily instructional practice. Formative assessment strategies are associated with the development and reinforcement of a series of skills linked to cognitive, metacognitive, behavioural and affective areas. This study investigated the effectiveness of formative assessment strategies in supporting the development of students' emotional and motivational capacities, resilience, self‐efficacy, self‐reflection, metacognitive awareness and self‐regulation. Specifically, it examined whether formative assessment strategies could enhance these skills and improve students' academic preparation for a summative mid‐term test. This quasi‐experimental study involved 581 students from 37 Italian upper secondary school classes in an investigation that tested the use of self‐ and peer‐assessment to support students' improvements in study organisation and effective summative test preparation. Findings indicate that formative assessment activities supported student preparation for a mid‐term summative test. Specifically, improvements in emotional attitudes, self‐efficacy, metacognitive awareness and aspects of self‐regulation related to rehearsal, elaboration and organisation of learning materials were reported. The data indicate that this skill development was attributed mainly to the implementation of a peer‐assessment strategy.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it