How to support self-assessment through standards in dissimilar-solution-tasks

IF 4.7 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Linda Froese, Julian Roelle
{"title":"How to support self-assessment through standards in dissimilar-solution-tasks","authors":"Linda Froese,&nbsp;Julian Roelle","doi":"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101998","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Providing learners with standards, which represent correct solutions to a task, is a promising means to support self-assessment. To date, however, the evidence in support of standards mainly stems from studies that used tasks for which correct solutions are very similar to each other in terms of both structural and surface features. By contrast, for tasks for which correct solutions are similar to each other only in terms of structural features, empirical evidence is scarce.</p></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><p>The goals of the present study were to investigate the effects of standards in tasks for which correct solutions are similar to each other only in terms of structural features.</p></div><div><h3>Samples</h3><p>Participants were <em>N</em><sub>Exp1</sub> = 139 and <em>N</em><sub>Exp2</sub> = 170 university students.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Using the task of generating examples that illustrate previously encountered declarative concepts, we varied whether in self-assessing the quality of their examples learners received <em>standards</em> (with vs. without) and <em>structural comparison/processing</em> support (with vs. without) that supported learners in processing the critical structural features of the standards and their own examples.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Standards increased self-assessment accuracy and performance. The effects concerning self-assessment accuracy could be enhanced by additionally providing structural comparison support.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>We conclude that standards are a promising means to support self-assessment accuracy in tasks for which correct solutions are similar to each other only in terms of structural features. However, their effectiveness depends on the degree to which learners compare their products and the standards in terms of structural features, which needs to be supported.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48357,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Instruction","volume":"94 ","pages":"Article 101998"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475224001257/pdfft?md5=d66d53fa7067c395a26cc6d03c2ca8c3&pid=1-s2.0-S0959475224001257-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Instruction","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475224001257","RegionNum":1,"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

Background

Providing learners with standards, which represent correct solutions to a task, is a promising means to support self-assessment. To date, however, the evidence in support of standards mainly stems from studies that used tasks for which correct solutions are very similar to each other in terms of both structural and surface features. By contrast, for tasks for which correct solutions are similar to each other only in terms of structural features, empirical evidence is scarce.

Aims

The goals of the present study were to investigate the effects of standards in tasks for which correct solutions are similar to each other only in terms of structural features.

Samples

Participants were NExp1 = 139 and NExp2 = 170 university students.

Methods

Using the task of generating examples that illustrate previously encountered declarative concepts, we varied whether in self-assessing the quality of their examples learners received standards (with vs. without) and structural comparison/processing support (with vs. without) that supported learners in processing the critical structural features of the standards and their own examples.

Results

Standards increased self-assessment accuracy and performance. The effects concerning self-assessment accuracy could be enhanced by additionally providing structural comparison support.

Conclusions

We conclude that standards are a promising means to support self-assessment accuracy in tasks for which correct solutions are similar to each other only in terms of structural features. However, their effectiveness depends on the degree to which learners compare their products and the standards in terms of structural features, which needs to be supported.

如何通过不同解决方案任务中的标准支持自我评估
背景向学习者提供代表任务正确解决方案的标准,是支持自我评估的一种很有前途的方法。然而,迄今为止,支持标准的证据主要来自于使用正确解决方案在结构和表面特征方面都非常相似的任务的研究。本研究的目的是调查标准在正确答案仅在结构特征方面彼此相似的任务中的效果。样本参与者为 NExp1 = 139 和 NExp2 = 170 名大学生。方法通过生成能说明以前遇到过的陈述性概念的示例这一任务,我们改变了学习者在自我评估示例质量时是否接受了标准(有与没有)和结构比较/处理支持(有与没有),以支持学习者处理标准和他们自己的示例的关键结构特征。结论我们得出结论,在正确的解决方案仅在结构特征方面相似的任务中,标准是支持自我评估准确性的一种有前途的手段。然而,标准的有效性取决于学习者在多大程度上将自己的产品与标准的结构特征进行比较,这需要得到支持。
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
11.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: As an international, multi-disciplinary, peer-refereed journal, Learning and Instruction provides a platform for the publication of the most advanced scientific research in the areas of learning, development, instruction and teaching. The journal welcomes original empirical investigations. The papers may represent a variety of theoretical perspectives and different methodological approaches. They may refer to any age level, from infants to adults and to a diversity of learning and instructional settings, from laboratory experiments to field studies. The major criteria in the review and the selection process concern the significance of the contribution to the area of learning and instruction, and the rigor of the study.
×
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