MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Surveying Assessment in Experiential Learning: A Single Campus Study

2015· article· en· W2246340831 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Thomas Yates, Jay Wilson, Kendra Purton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsExperiential learningContext (archaeology)HumanitiesPsychologyValuation (finance)SociologyPedagogyPhilosophyGeographyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to determine the methods of experiential assessment in use at a Canadian university and the extent to which they are used. Exploring experiential assessment will allow identification of commonly used methods and facilitate the development of best practices of assessment in the context of experiential learning (EL) at an institutional level. The origins of EL are found in the work of Dewey (1938), later modified by Kolb and Fry (1975). Experiential methods include: experiential education, service learning problem-based learning and others such as action learning, enquiry-based learning, and case studies. Faculty currently involved in EL at the participating university were invited to complete an online survey about their teaching and assessment methods. This paper will share the results and analysis of the EL inventory survey. L’objectif de cette étude était de déterminer quelles méthodes d’évaluation expérientielle sont employées dans les universités canadiennes et dans quelle mesure elles sont employées. Le fait d’explorer l’évaluation expérientielle permettra d’identifier quelles sont les méthodes employées couramment et facilitera le développement des meilleures pratiques d’évaluation dans le contexte de l’apprentissage expérientiel au niveau institutionnel. Les origines de l’apprentissage expérientiel se trouvent dans les travaux de Dewey (1938), modifiés plus tard par Kolb et Fry (1975). Les méthodes expérientielles comprennent : l’éducation expérientielle, l’apprentissage par le service, l’apprentissage par problèmes, ainsi que quelques autres tel que l’apprentissage par action, l’apprentissage par l’enquête et les études de cas. Les professeurs qui pratiquent actuellement l’apprentissage expérientiel dans les universités participantes ont été invités à remplir un questionnaire en ligne portant sur leur enseignement et leurs méthodes d’évaluation. Cet article partage les résultats et les analyses du sondage sur l’apprentissage expérientiel.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207