POSTER: What work habits are being assessed across Canada?
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction While academic achievement is associated with employment, educational and social opportunities, it is not the only predictor. Factors such as perseverance, collaboration, and self-regulation are independently associated with positive life outcomes (e.g., Borghans, et al., 2008, Duckworth, et al., 2007). Furthermore, it is both desirable and possible to develop these capacities in students (Heckman, Pinto, & Savelyev 2013; Levin 2012). Perhaps in response to this awareness, educators are expected to help students develop not just curricular knowledge, but also skills and behaviours considered essential for success in the modern workplace (Conference Board of Canada, 2014). Within the Canadian context, educators report on ‘work habits’ as well as grades. While there is a national consensus that teachers should assess and report upon elements of student performance beyond achievement, there has been no study describing what work habits are being assessed, nor how they are reported upon. Objectives The purpose of this research is to determine the: work habits teachers are expected to measure and report upon across Canada; grade level and regional differences in the assessment and reporting of work habits; commonalities and differences in the assessment and reporting of work habits. Design/Methodology This research will analyse publicly accessible documents and websites from ministries of education and urban school boards from all 10 provinces. Policy documents and report cards will be scrutinized to determine which learning skills and work habits are assessed in different jurisdictions, and how they are reported upon (e.g. comments, letter grades, or descriptors). Further analysis will examine grade level differences in the assessment and reporting of these skills and habits, with an eye to finding common trends and themes across Canada. Document analyses will be supplemented by telephone interviews to provide additional context. Results Data collection is ongoing. Conclusion To be determined after data collection and analysis are complete. Bibliography Borghans, L., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J., & Bas, t. W. (2008). The economics and psychology of personality traits. Journal of Human Resources, 43(4), 972-1059. Conference Board of Canada (2014). Employability Skills 2000+. Retrieved from, http://www.conferenceboard.ca/Libraries/educ_public/esp2000.sflb. Accessed Jan. 13, 2015. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M.D., and Kelly, D.R. (2007) Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , Vol 92(6), Jun 2007, 1087-1101. Heckman, J., Pinto, R., and Savelyev, P. (2013). Understanding the Mechanisms through Which an Influential Early Childhood Program Boosted Adult Outcomes. American Economic Review , 103(6), 2052-86. Levin, H. (2012). More than just test scores. Prospects 42(3), 269–284.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 découle