Experiential Learning Assessment in Post-secondary Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article shares results from the research project “Experiential Learning Assessment in Post-Secondary Education.” The purpose of this research was to develop a further understanding of experiential learning assessment (EL) through an exploratory approach with university faculty and students. This article shares findings from the first part of a two-part research project examining the faculty experience of assessment in EL. A second research study is underway that provides the student perspective. The first phase of the research engaged University of Saskatchewan instructors with experience in experiential learning. Nine participants completed an online survey and six discussed their experiences and understanding in a focus group or an interview. Findings revealed that EL students were far more engaged with their learning than those in traditional courses. Participants applied their experience to expand upon current definitions and characteristics of EL assessment. They also shared differences with EL instruction and assessment as compared to traditional courses. Common themes identified by participants included a need for questioning and processes to integrate more EL assessment strategies into teaching and learning. Participants shared advice for those considering EL approaches in their own teachings. As EL continues to be a key area of growth for many universities and post-secondary institutions, this study contributes to the body of knowledge and appeals to faculty, designers, and others tasked with implementing effective EL.
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 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 | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".