Estimating the dimensionality of learning: The model for decomposed change

IF 2.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Denis Federiakin , Olga Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia , William B. Walstad
{"title":"Estimating the dimensionality of learning: The model for decomposed change","authors":"Denis Federiakin ,&nbsp;Olga Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia ,&nbsp;William B. Walstad","doi":"10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Psychometrics traditionally has assumed that the changes occurring during learning have the same dimensionality as the targeted construct. This approach is akin to understanding learning as climbing a mountain: for each ability a student can increase their ability, decrease it, or not change it. However, an alternative approach has recently been suggested – learning score analysis. This analysis is grounded in the assumption that students “slide through” the curriculum rather than “climb it”: they forget something to learn something. This approach suggests that positive and negative dynamics can occur at the same time. This suggestion is also supported by the evidence from cognitive psychology that learning and forgetting are separate cognitive processes. Hence, we contrast the traditional approach to conceptualizing growth and change to the alternative approach. We use IRT-based modeling to compare the results from both approaches, and show that the alternative approach provides more insight into learning.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47539,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Educational Evaluation","volume":"83 ","pages":"Article 101377"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X24000567/pdfft?md5=37c8349e8748278ba6484be3b803adee&pid=1-s2.0-S0191491X24000567-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Educational Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X24000567","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Psychometrics traditionally has assumed that the changes occurring during learning have the same dimensionality as the targeted construct. This approach is akin to understanding learning as climbing a mountain: for each ability a student can increase their ability, decrease it, or not change it. However, an alternative approach has recently been suggested – learning score analysis. This analysis is grounded in the assumption that students “slide through” the curriculum rather than “climb it”: they forget something to learn something. This approach suggests that positive and negative dynamics can occur at the same time. This suggestion is also supported by the evidence from cognitive psychology that learning and forgetting are separate cognitive processes. Hence, we contrast the traditional approach to conceptualizing growth and change to the alternative approach. We use IRT-based modeling to compare the results from both approaches, and show that the alternative approach provides more insight into learning.

估计学习的维度:分解变化模型
心理测量学传统上假定,学习过程中发生的变化与目标建构具有相同的维度。这种方法类似于把学习理解为爬山:对于每一种能力,学生可以提高能力、降低能力或不改变能力。然而,最近有人提出了另一种方法--学习分数分析法。这种分析法基于这样一种假设,即学生是 "滑过 "课程而不是 "攀登 "课程:他们忘掉一些东西来学习一些东西。这种方法表明,积极和消极的动态变化可能同时发生。认知心理学的证据也支持这一观点,即学习和遗忘是不同的认知过程。因此,我们将传统的成长与变化概念化方法与替代方法进行了对比。我们使用基于 IRT 的建模来比较两种方法的结果,结果表明,替代方法更能深入了解学习。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
90
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: Studies in Educational Evaluation publishes original reports of evaluation studies. Four types of articles are published by the journal: (a) Empirical evaluation studies representing evaluation practice in educational systems around the world; (b) Theoretical reflections and empirical studies related to issues involved in the evaluation of educational programs, educational institutions, educational personnel and student assessment; (c) Articles summarizing the state-of-the-art concerning specific topics in evaluation in general or in a particular country or group of countries; (d) Book reviews and brief abstracts of evaluation studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信