Toward a Praxis-Oriented Understanding of Student Self-Assessment in STEAM Education: How Exemplary Educators Leverage Self-Assessment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While researchers have begun to develop theories of assessment to support integrated learning within Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics (STEAM) education, the role of student self-assessment (SSA) – a core aspect of classroom assessment – has been understudied. The purpose of this research was to develop an initial praxis-oriented understanding of how exemplary STEAM educators provoke SSA in integrated learning. Through an in-depth qualitative methodology drawing on interview and artefact data from 14 purposefully selected exemplary STEAM teachers, this study identified seven types of SSA activities: (a) self-documentation of learning; (b) reflection; (c) making metacognitive processes explicit; (d) prototype testing and revision; (e) goal setting; (f) self-testing; and (g) interactional SSA. Superimposed on the engineering design process, a process commonly leveraged to integrate disciplines in STEAM education, results provide a nuanced understanding of how exemplary STEAM educators leverage SSA, advancing assessment theory and practice in integrated education.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it