Formative assessment quizzes: initial teacher education (ITE) trainee engagement and perceptions.
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
In Ofsted’s Initial Teacher Education (ITE) Inspection Framework (2023), a key focus of inspections is to consider how providers assess trainees formatively. A thorough understanding of how the ITE curriculum is assessed to support trainees to build, use and apply their knowledge must be demonstrated.<br/><br/>Formative assessment strategies offer opportunities for tutors to provide information to the student during learning to modify their understanding, management and regulation (Leenknecht et al., 2021). Feedback provided by students is used to improve the teaching-learning process through responsive questioning, advising and interventions (Hamodi et al., 2017). Tailored formative assessments can provide diagnostic information, supporting all parties to understand where gaps in knowledge lie. If followed up with effective support from tutors and an equally determined attitude from the trainee to act, a positive impact on progress can be achieved (McCallum and Milner, 2020).<br/><br/>At Edge Hill University, primary education trainees’ progress is tracked via a range of formative assessment approaches. Diagnostic formative assessment quizzes form a part of this approach and are intended to inform students of where gaps in understanding lie. Quizzes should act as an impetus for students to take action to support their own progress. This research presents a mixed methods approach to analysing trainees’ engagement with and perceptions of the primary geography formative assessment quiz via their responses to a questionnaire. An understanding of the reasons behind trainee engagement with the quiz is achieved as well as a clearer understanding of trainee perceptions around the level of challenge and its impact on their motivation. The perceived impact of the quiz upon trainees’ ability to set meaningful targets is analysed. It is identified that students’ perceptions of such assessment approaches have implications for their overall satisfaction with their degree course of study.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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