Goal setting and reflection as a tool for children summer camp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research was conducted to study the impact of goal setting and reflection used during summer camp. To be specific, to find whether or not there are any improvements possible by using these methods for the Get Wild! summer camp located in British Columbia, Canada. We, adults, use these methods almost daily, in everyday life. However, there are not many practices with children despite its importance. \n \nThe Get Wild! summer camp did not have any similar activities included in their program so far. For that reason, they welcomed the idea very much. As they are an educational organization working with children for many years, they understood the potential of such development. They agreed on our cooperation to develope a goal setting and reflection sessions in order to improve their summer camps. \n \nIt was necessary to find out what the coordinators are in need of improving. A questionnaire was constructed with questions targeting the outcome. The result was heavily feedback- and communication-oriented, as coordinators desired to know more about the camp from the children perspective. After collecting the answers from the first questionnaire, a short interview was conducted. This interview served a purpose of communicating more details between the researcher and the coordinators before the summer camp officially started. \nThe very first two weeks of the camp were strictly about an observation. This step helped to narrow down the structure of the week. \n \nThe development result consisted of one goal setting session and one reflection session per week. To help keeping the data from each week, an excel sheets were introduced to the coordinators. They transcribed each child’s goal and reflection session. On top of that, they reported in a separate excel sheet about the past week. Another data collecting method were two questionnaires that were sent to the coordinators. It served a purpose to be able to compare the data from before the implementation and after. The last data collecting method was an observation during the summer camp. \n \nThe implementation of this study was successful. The coordinators reported that the receiving feedback and communication element improved during their summer camp. Other observations were made about more benefits from this development work for children and the coordinators. \nThere is still space for more improvement and further study in this field. More unexplored theories and ideas crossed the mind as, for example, the educational part of such practices could have been involved more.
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 | 0.020 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".