Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the scale and pace of change of sustainability challenges in the world today, it is vital for students to develop into expert learners who can assess their abilities and knowledge and identify future learning needs. Self-assessment is not a straightforward task and requires support to develop. The current study examined the effect of using self-assessment over time, combined with reflection, on students’ abilities to develop self-assessment skills. The study was conducted in an undergraduate course that uses project-based, problem-based learning to engage students in real-world projects regarding sustainability. The findings indicate that while students can engage in quantitative self-assessment, there are concerns with accuracy and metacognition. Reflection regarding their self-assessment contributes to addressing these issues. In addition, to be effective, students require guidance on how to recognize and explore what they do not yet know. Finally, they also need support in recognizing learning as an active process that occurs over time. This study frames self-assessment as a tool for developing informed judgment of their own learning and future learning needs rather than as a tool for summative assessment of past learning. Implications for future research are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".