Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the author presents an overview of the different types of evaluation, or assessment, typically used in college and university settings. Three ethical issues commonly identified when evaluating adult learners are discussed: learner readiness, evaluation credibility, and the power issue. Learner‐centred or collaborative programs are suggested as the type of learning experience that could best resolve the ethical dilemmas when assessing adults. As more and more adults are returning to the classroom, the question of how to provide meaningful evaluation is a challenge facing many educators. Increasing numbers of adult learners are demanding a high quality learning experience, including assessments that are appropriate to their needs. An examination of the various styles of evaluation available will provide insight into how facilitators can make such changes in their curricula. In this article, I will describe the methods of evaluation typically used to assess adult learners in self‐directed learning (SDL) and in teacher‐directed learning (TDL) situations. Some advantages and disadvantages of each method will be stated, followed by a description of selected ethical issues associated with evaluation in each case. I will also discuss the middle ground between SDL and TDL. In my opinion, this middle ground, often called learner‐centred and collaborative learning, is becoming popular in institutional programs. I will examine the possibility that evaluation techniques in this middle zone may act to resolve some ethical dilemmas of assessing adults.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".