THE PRINCIPAL’S PERCEIVED ROLE IN TEACHER ASSESSMENT PRACTICES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the principal’s perception of their role within the context of classroom assessments. Effective assessment practices have demonstrated the most consistent positive impact on student achievement. Research on the specific role of the principal in the process of classroom assessment is limited.\nThis study used a qualitative methodology. Eight elementary principals with at least five years of experience were interviewed from both rural and urban schools in Southwestern Ontario. Interviews were conducted face-to-face using a semi-structured format.\nThere were three key findings from the study. Principals ’levels of assessment literacy varied, from having a very limited understanding of assessment literacy to a more comprehensive understanding. Principals had a very limited view of the elements o fa sound assessment system, and the link between classroom and wide-scale assessments and reporting systems. Principals considered their role as more of a manager than an educational leader.\nThere are two recommendations offered: first, at the provincial level, that the government of Ontario develop more resources that include a common language about assessment and for the development of assessment literacy of the educational community; and second, that the local board look at the role of the principal from a leadership position
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 | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".