Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess whether the use of student self-assessment of non-cognitive skills is accurate and reliable by comparing them to the assessment of student development provided by their teachers of these same skills. For this study non-cognitive skills refer to skills including communication, collaboration, creative thinking, critical thinking, and social emotional skills. Non-cognitive skills are recognized as important for individuals and for communities. There is increased pressure on schools to develop non-cognitive skills in their students. To do this, useful assessments must be used to guide individuals as well as decision makers and policy makers. Assessing non-cognitive skills is particularly challenging. British Columbia recently redesigned its entire K-12 curriculum and placed non-cognitive skills as the foundation of the new curriculum. The plan to measure the development of these skills is to use student self-assessments. Are such assessments useful? This study uses students in grades six through nine from a small British Columbia middle school as the sample and compares self-assessment of non-cognitive skills to the assessments that homeroom teachers provide of the same students to help ascertain the utility of the assessments. This study found that though the relationship between assessments is positive, it is weak. Teacher assessments are most strongly predicted by student fundamental skill development than any other variable. Serious questions are raised about the validity of either assessment which points to the need for clarity of purpose when selecting and using assessment tools, especially for non-cognitive skills.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".