An Interdisciplinary Model for Assessing Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the 1994-95 school year the Kansas Association of School Librarians Research Committee conducted a literature review and held a two-day summer institute to develop an interdisciplinary model for assessing learning across the curriculum. Participating were teachers, administrators, library media specialists, and Kansas State Board of Education curriculum specialists. During the 1995-96 school year the committee presented the model to teachers and library media specialists at professional meetings and workshops for reactions. The model has been revised and is being tested in Kansas schools during the 1996-97 school year.
 The model is based on the “Big Six” model for information problem-solving by Eisenberg and Berkowitz (1990) and is derived from an analysis of Kansas content standards for language arts, social studies, mathematics, science, reading, and library media. The model divides student assignments in these six subject areas into five parts, using terminology from the standards for each subject. Rubrics have been developed for each of the five parts of an assignment. This paper will recount development of the model, delineate elements of the model, reveal preliminary findings of the current research project which tests the model, and discuss implications for implementing the model.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".