How do teachers process technology-based formative assessment results in their daily practice? Results from process mining of think-aloud data

IF 4.7 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Sarah Bez , Fabian Burkart , Martin J. Tomasik , Samuel Merk
{"title":"How do teachers process technology-based formative assessment results in their daily practice? Results from process mining of think-aloud data","authors":"Sarah Bez ,&nbsp;Fabian Burkart ,&nbsp;Martin J. Tomasik ,&nbsp;Samuel Merk","doi":"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Technology-based formative assessments are considered promising in terms of reducing teachers’ workload and providing validity advantages but little is known how teachers use the assessment results to inform their instruction in their daily practice.</div></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><div>We explored how teachers process technology-based formative assessment results using think-aloud methodology in an ecologically valid setting.</div></div><div><h3>Sample</h3><div>Forty-eight experienced in-service teachers participated in the study.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We asked the teachers to verbalize their thoughts while they processed students’ formative assessment results as they usually do. Screencasts of the verbalizations and assessment results were recorded. Based on these, trained raters coded the main steps of processing and which specific aspects of the results were noticed based on a deductive-inductive coding scheme. Cluster analyses were applied to explore differences among teachers, and process mining was conducted to explore the main processes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We found four main steps: <em>noticing results</em>, <em>comparing with personal perspective</em>, <em>analyzing errors</em> and <em>constructing instructional implications</em>. Relative durations of these steps vary substantially among teachers. Cluster analyses indicate that processes were differentiated according to the complexity of summarizing and building relationships between single data points. The fitted process model revealed low dependency values in general and indicates that noticing results on its own seemed to be insufficient for constructing instructional implications.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This study generates the hypothesis that analyzing errors and comparing results with the personal perspective are important for teachers for next instructional decisions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48357,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Instruction","volume":"97 ","pages":"Article 102100"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Instruction","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475225000234","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

Technology-based formative assessments are considered promising in terms of reducing teachers’ workload and providing validity advantages but little is known how teachers use the assessment results to inform their instruction in their daily practice.

Aims

We explored how teachers process technology-based formative assessment results using think-aloud methodology in an ecologically valid setting.

Sample

Forty-eight experienced in-service teachers participated in the study.

Methods

We asked the teachers to verbalize their thoughts while they processed students’ formative assessment results as they usually do. Screencasts of the verbalizations and assessment results were recorded. Based on these, trained raters coded the main steps of processing and which specific aspects of the results were noticed based on a deductive-inductive coding scheme. Cluster analyses were applied to explore differences among teachers, and process mining was conducted to explore the main processes.

Results

We found four main steps: noticing results, comparing with personal perspective, analyzing errors and constructing instructional implications. Relative durations of these steps vary substantially among teachers. Cluster analyses indicate that processes were differentiated according to the complexity of summarizing and building relationships between single data points. The fitted process model revealed low dependency values in general and indicates that noticing results on its own seemed to be insufficient for constructing instructional implications.

Conclusions

This study generates the hypothesis that analyzing errors and comparing results with the personal perspective are important for teachers for next instructional decisions.
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