Assessment as a Learning Project: Online Surveys with Immediate Formative Feedback
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PurposeThis paper proposes a practical assessment model that focuses on students' performance-related variables, for which information literacy (IL) is designed and delivered.High satisfaction rates about library instruction do not always correlate with user's performance level on evaluating information online and sourcing quality information; the findings from the case study at Cape Breton University (CBU), Nova Scotia, Canada, provides a potential solution to the current challenge in the assessment process. Design/Methodology/ApproachThe author launched a research project called Assessment as Learning Project: Online Surveys with Immediate Formative Feedback at CBU by designing and developing two online surveys for students who are taking courses in the School of Arts and Social Sciences.A 30-minute pre-survey (FluidSurveys & Moodle) includes seventeen exercise questions and consists of eighty-eight pieces of feedback in total.Fifteen questions are new, with the exception of two questions adapted from The Effectiveness of a University's Single-session Information Literacy Instruction (Hsieh & Holden, 2010).The pre-survey allows students to gauge their ability to assess credibility, accuracy, authority, and/or currency.Students can also learn how to develop their IL skills by reading the feedback that pops up immediately after students choose their answer.The pre-survey was delivered before a major assignment during the Winter semester.A 20-minute post-survey, including seven new exercise questions, was delivered at the end of the semester.The post-survey was designed to remind students of what they learned from the pre-survey.Many exercise questions include a quotation from a source.The sources vary and include comments on a historical figure, biography that includes historical accounts on non-Western cultures, data that pertains to emotionally disturbing experiences, and news articles that can commonly be shared through social media (e.g., http://yumetsub.site11.com/quiz_sample.html).This paper includes an analysis on the data from the surveys, for example, students' progress on their IL skills. FindingsThe results from the surveys indicate three potential benefits.First, given a reflective learning opportunity, students can recognize the strengths and weaknesses of their information literacy skills and learn how to improve their skills.Second, students can learn what kind of questions they can ask librarians because feedback indicates what kind of questions librarians can answer.Third, instructors/faculty can save the time to repeatedly teach students not to use certain types of sources in their assignments since the surveys explain and bring awareness to this for the students. Practical implications/ValueIf students are overconfident in their abilities to search, find and evaluate information, they risk underestimating the challenge of finding and using quality information online; thus helping them foster critical self-reflection is one way to mitigate the problem.An example is demonstrated by the assessment surveys that include various types of sources and provide guidance of how to consult a person, tool, or platform as a source of information.The assessment was tested in various disciplines in the School of Arts and Social Sciences.The results indicate a number of potentials to use and develop the surveys: for example, they can be incorporated into a curriculum assignment.
Conservé avec la notice de tri, où il sert de preuve aux étiquettes ci-dessus.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Le tri à trois modèles
les 5 600 travaux triés →1 modèle sur 3 a qualifié ce travail de métarecherche. Ce travail est contesté : il se situe à la frontière empirique du domaine, et son statut dépend du modèle interrogé. C'est l'un des 51 travaux du dossier des désaccords.
Academic library study of information literacy instruction and assessment: how students find and evaluate sources; LIS work on information behaviour, though the object is student learning rather than researchers.
It evaluates students' information-literacy learning rather than researchers' information behavior.
Student information-literacy pedagogy/assessment at a university, not information behaviour of researchers.
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,077 | 0,117 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».