Leveling the Playing Field: A Proposal for a Portfolio Summative Assessment for a Task- Based Adult ESL Course to Address the Needs of Students with Limited or Interrupted Formal Education (SLIFE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research shows that students with limited or interrupted education (SLIFE) are at a distinct disadvantage when taking formalized exams as compared to their more highly educated peers due to factors such as cultural dissonance. The need for an alternative method of summative assessment that rewards SLIFE’s strengths, such as funds of knowledge and collaboration skills, instead of punishing them for their lack of test-tasking skills and background knowledge is the central focus of this project. This project is a proposal for an adult school district to pilot a portfolio summative assessment as an alternative to formalized testing. The rationale for this project is based on factors such as the negative effects of cultural dissonance, the benefits of collectivism as skill-building strengths in task-based learning environments, a comparison of research on formalized and portfolio assessments, and the need for assessment reform in adult education. The benefits of a portfolio summative assessment are many and may improve the summative assessment process not only for SLIFE but for all stakeholders. At the same time, research reveals that the method faces many challenges, mostly due to its recency. These challenges may be overcome with careful planning, input from all stakeholders, and further research. The design of the pilot project proposed herein is heavily influenced by Desyatova’s case study of Canada’s experience with a summative portfolio assessment and the problems they encountered. Solutions to those problems are embedded in the proposed project plan. The goal of this project is to open a dialogue with school districts in the hope that it leads to a pilot implementation of the method along with further research.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".