Improving Learner-Driven Teaching Practices through Reflective Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective – Reflective assessment is an effective method of teacher evaluation, serving as an approach for assessing teaching practices, generating insights, and connecting with colleagues, ultimately supporting meaningful transformation of teaching practice. In this paper, three librarians model a reflective assessment approach in evaluating and improving their experiences implementing learner-driven teaching practices in credit-bearing courses in topics related to library and information studies. Methods – Following a model of reflective assessment, we asked ourselves how our practice can better support learner-driven teaching practices, thus assessing and improving our own teaching and improving students’ learning experiences. Our process involved five steps: cohere around shared viewpoints, identify teaching practices for reflection, conduct reflection, discuss and analyze reflections to produce insights, and apply insights to improve teaching. Results – We reflect on five different learner-driven teaching practices: co-creative syllabus design, learner-defined personal learning goals, soliciting and responding to learner feedback, interdisciplinary discussions and exercises, and self-evaluation. We discuss improvements and refinements that we implemented in response to our reflective assessment, including more frequent checking in with students; more clarity regarding self-evaluation and grading; one-on-one meetings with all students; allowing students to negotiate, discuss, and determine assignment deadlines and dates; more flexibility with students’ work products; and increased pedagogical transparency. As a further result, our reflective process models an approachable framework for engaging in reflective assessment. Conclusion – This paper presents a model for reflective assessment of teaching in an academic library. We present a discussion of learner-driven teaching practices, and we offer a practical pathway for other teachers and practitioners to assess their teaching. We find that reflective assessment is an effective and insightful approach for understanding and improving learner-driven teaching practices.
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 | 0.083 | 0.171 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".