Development of a Rubric to Assess Lifelong Learning in Work-Integrated Learning Reflection Assignments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lifelong learning has emerged as an important learning outcome across the Canadian post-secondary education system. However, assessments of lifelong learning have been limited to students’ self-reports, particularly questionnaires. In programs that offer work-integrated learning experiences, students’ reflections may provide a window to further developing this outcome. The purpose of this study was to develop a rubric for assessing lifelong learning in this context. A review of the literature was used to develop both a rubric and self-assessment instrument for measuring lifelong learning. Students in an accounting and financial management co-op program at a Canadian university (n = 32) completed the self-assessment and the rubric was applied to two reflection assignments. Staff feedback and correlational analyses provide initial support for the rubric as a useful tool for assessing lifelong learning. Implications for educators especially in work-integrated learning contexts are addressed. Keywords: lifelong learning, reflection, rubric, work-integrated learning L’apprentissage permanent est devenu un objectif d’apprentissage important dans l’ensemble du système d’éducation postsecondaire canadien. Toutefois, l’évaluation de l’apprentissage permanent s’est limitée jusqu’à maintenant aux témoignages des étudiants, au moyen de questionnaires tout particulièrement. Dans les programmes qui offrent des expériences d’apprentissage intégrées au milieu du travail, les réflexions des étudiants peuvent représenter une occasion de progrès dans ce domaine. L’objectif de notre étude était de concevoir une grille d’évaluation permettant d’évaluer l’apprentissage permanent dans un tel contexte. En nous fondant sur un examen des études existantes, nous avons élaboré cette grille ainsi qu’un outil d’auto-évaluation afin d’évaluer l’apprentissage permanent. Des étudiants inscrits dans un programme d’alternance travail-études en comptabilité et gestion financière d’une université canadienne (n = 32) ont complété l’auto-évaluation et nous avons appliqué la grille d’évaluation à deux devoirs d’ordre réflexif. Les commentaires du personnel et l’analyse des corrélations semblent de prime abord indiquer que la grille d’évaluation est un outil utile pour évaluer l’apprentissage permanent. Nous discutons des conséquences de notre étude pour les éducateurs, tout spécialement dans le contexte de l’apprentissage intégré au milieu de travail. Mots clés : apprentissage permanent, réflexion, grille d’évaluation, apprentissage intégré au milieu de travail
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 | 0.022 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".