Evaluation and assessment in teacher education : an analysis of the assessment culture of an Ontario initial teacher education program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ontario Ministry of Education, with the shortest teacher evaluation programs in the nation, is proposing changes to the two-semester teacher education "Professional Year" in favour of a longer program. Rather than looking at either the semester length or the number of semesters of a program, an evaluation of the assessment culture and curriculum of the teacher education program may be more appropriate to evaluate the effectiveness and quality of Ontario's pre-service teacher education. This is one such audit. \nThis mixed method analysis uses a course syllabus review, teacher candidate surveys and semi-structured interviews to identify the assessment culture of the initial teacher education program. The creation and comparison of ethnographic profiles of course assignments allow for a deeper analysis of the assessment protocols associated with the Primary/Junior, Junior/Intermediate, and Intermediate/Senior divisions. \nInitial results show that the teacher education program at the Faculty in this study uses summative assessment through in-class presentations, lesson and unit plans, and reflective essays. Also, teacher candidates exhibit characteristics of both achieving and deep achieving learners. \nThere is sufficient evidence to suggest that students would benefit from having all assignment information upfront on the first day of class with the course syllabi containing not only the assignment weight, name, and due date, but also all information required to complete the assessment of the course.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".