Seeing Schools from the Inside Out: The Role of Students in School Self-Assessment.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agreat deal of the policy talk on education reform is about students, especially student achievement. Unfortunately, student voice remains conspicuous by its absence in the public debate on education reform. School-centred reform is creating opportunities to remedy this situation; however, to date, these opportunities are more a potential than a reality. This article reports on a recent attempt to involve students as the key evaluators in a school self-assessment project in Montreal, Quebec. The assessment project was conducted by 32 students in a secondary V French class in a French immersion/math-science alternative school. Their purpose was to evaluate the success or failure of the school’s educational project, specifically the implementation of its mission statement. The mission statement was chosen as the focus of the student evaluation as the school’s administration and staff have often expressed their concerns about its mandate and a desire to see it revised. From the project leader’s perspective, the purpose of the project was to validate and legitimize students’ role as serious contributors to the assessment process: “Taking students seriously as evaluators is the key to the student evaluator model, a process in which students, with the help of an experienced evaluation facilitator, design and carry out evaluations of specific programs in which they are involved.” Working in small groups, the students were assigned two main tasks: first, to devise and administer a simple questionnaire, analyse the data obtained from the questionnaire, and present a summary of the results; and second, to prepare a visual and oral presentation (“photo essay”) based on photographs taken throughout the school which recorded the students’ impression of the success or failure of the school in its implementation of the mission statement.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.051 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".