Educators sorted 11 talents into the proposed FRTF clusters significantly above chance, from 94.8% (self-assessment) to 44.8% (critical thinking)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · design r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2024: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on a source with no registered publication record (a web page, book or unpublished report). It is kept because 2 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In an online sorting task, 97 WIL educators sorted each of 11 talent labels into its proposed cluster at rates significantly above the 25% chance level (one-sample t-tests, all p < .001). → Pretti 2021 q3 i? Correct-sort rates ranged widely, from 94.8% for Self-Assessment to 44.8% for Critical Thinking, indicating some cluster memberships were less intuitive. → Pretti 2021 (2)

Evidence¶

Pretti 2021¶

Pretti, T. J., Etmanski, B., & Drewery, D. W. (2021). Development and validation of a future ready talent framework. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 22(3), 369-383. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1313416

q3 · i? · design · r2

Online sorting study with WIL educators at the University of Waterloo (n = 97) who dragged each talent label into one of four talent clusters with no other information. Table 3 prints one-sample t-tests against .25; e.g., Collaboration 94.7%, t = 30.28, p < .001, supporting the framework's conceptual organization.

"Results of one-sample t-tests (where the test value is .25, representing the 1 in 4 odds of correctly sorting a talent by chance) are also provided. Results indicate support for the conceptual organization of the talents in the FRTF."

Pretti 2021 (2)¶

Pretti, T. J., Etmanski, B., & Drewery, D. W. (2021). Development and validation of a future ready talent framework. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 22(3), 369-383. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1313416

q3 · i? · design · r2

Descriptive range of correct sorts from Table 3 of the same sorting task. The article notes critical thinking was matched with its correct cluster almost twice as frequently as the 25% chance rate, while continuous learning and career development (65.3%) and innovation mindset (64.6%) were mid-range.

"Participants sorted each talent with as high adherence as 94.8% (Self-Assessment as a member of the Develop Self cluster). The least correctly sorted talent was that of critical thinking (44.8% as member of Design and Deliver Solutions)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A literature synthesis of 46 talent frameworks and future-of-work reports yielded 29 unique talents reduced to the FRTF's 12 talents — related
• 54 of 59 FRTF behavioral examples were sorted better than chance and 48 by a majority of educator participants — related
• Several FRTF behavioral examples were not sorted better than chance, including actively listening to others (18.2%) and exploring implications of proposed solutions (9.4%) — related
• Stakeholder consultation with 60 WIL students, employers, and educators generated 1,806 behavioral examples distilled into 59 — related