Stakeholder Involvement in Educational Evaluation: Québec’s Commission d’évaluation de l’enseignement collégial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The introduction of program evaluation in Quebec’s junior colleges — known as CEGEPs or Collèges d’enseignement général et professionnel — has followed two general principles. Those called to participate in evaluation are asked to specify the objectives of the programs being evaluated. The Quebec college teaching evaluation board, the Commission d’évaluation de l’enseignement collégial (CÉEC), proposes that all who have active roles in the management or teaching of the CEGEP programs should participate in evaluation. The evaluation process should be both results-oriented and participative. Those who should be most involved in the evaluation exercise — the CEGEP teachers — have for the most part refused to participate. This is explained, according to the CÉEC, by the “new and ill-defined nature of the task.” However, the CEGEP teachers are also perceived as being resistant to evaluation, which the CÉEC evaluators hope will change over time. In the evaluation of the Day Care Education Program, for example, the evaluators focused primarily on the objectives of the full-time diploma (DEC) programs rather than on those of the part-time (AEC) programs. As a result, the evaluation failed to identify some of the real problems of the AEC programs. It is argued that a theory-driven approach to evaluation would be more successful in dealing with the AEC programs’ problems. A bottom-up approach would have mobilized more stakeholder involvement than the top-down approach actually employed.
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 | 0.280 | 0.273 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".