Open and Closed-Book Assessments in Secondary School Mathematics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative research study investigates teachers’ perspectives on open and closed-book assessments in secondary math classrooms. The covid-19 pandemic forced many teachers in Ontario to change their assessment style from closed-book to open-book. After teaching a full year with open-book assessments (2021/2022), three secondary math teachers were interviewed based on their experiences. The following year (2022/2023), the same teachers transitioned their classrooms back to closed-book and participated in another interview. Based on their interviews, this study had twelve major findings pertaining to open and closed-book assessments within the themes; student learning, grades, assessment practices, learning skills, higher order thinking, anxiety and equity. Some of the findings include; (1) teachers stated that some students struggled with time management on open-book assessments, (2) the teachers stated that students assumed open-book assessments would be easier and two teachers stated that some students spend less time preparing for their assessments as a result, and (3) the teachers stated that students engage in last-minute preparation for their closed-book assessments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".