葡萄牙公立大学学习评估方法:定量研究

Eva Lopes Fernandes, Maria-Assunção Flores, Irene Cadime, Clara Pereira Coutinho
{"title":"葡萄牙公立大学学习评估方法:定量研究","authors":"Eva Lopes Fernandes, Maria-Assunção Flores, Irene Cadime, Clara Pereira Coutinho","doi":"10.15366/riee2020.13.2.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article is part of a broader research project aimed at identifying the most valued and most used assessment methods by faculty in the Portuguese context. The results were collected through a survey with faculty from five Portuguese public universities (n=185) in all professional categories and cycles of study, of the following scientific areas: Hard Sciences, Engineering and Technology Sciences, Medical and Health Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities. The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) results indicated a three factors model for both scales:  collective methods, portfolios and reflections, and individual methods. The item “written tests and exams” was treated in subsequent analysis independently as observable variable. The results of descriptive statistics identify a greater valorisation and use of written tests and exams and a lower valorisation and use of portfolios and reflections. Data also suggest statistically significant differences in the use of assessment methods according to the cycles of study, the area of knowledge and pedagogical training.","PeriodicalId":166932,"journal":{"name":"Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa","volume":"88 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Métodos de Avaliação das Aprendizagens em Universidades Públicas Portuguesas: Um Estudo Quantitativo\",\"authors\":\"Eva Lopes Fernandes, Maria-Assunção Flores, Irene Cadime, Clara Pereira Coutinho\",\"doi\":\"10.15366/riee2020.13.2.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article is part of a broader research project aimed at identifying the most valued and most used assessment methods by faculty in the Portuguese context. The results were collected through a survey with faculty from five Portuguese public universities (n=185) in all professional categories and cycles of study, of the following scientific areas: Hard Sciences, Engineering and Technology Sciences, Medical and Health Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities. The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) results indicated a three factors model for both scales:  collective methods, portfolios and reflections, and individual methods. The item “written tests and exams” was treated in subsequent analysis independently as observable variable. The results of descriptive statistics identify a greater valorisation and use of written tests and exams and a lower valorisation and use of portfolios and reflections. Data also suggest statistically significant differences in the use of assessment methods according to the cycles of study, the area of knowledge and pedagogical training.\",\"PeriodicalId\":166932,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa\",\"volume\":\"88 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15366/riee2020.13.2.001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15366/riee2020.13.2.001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文是一个更广泛的研究项目的一部分,旨在确定在葡萄牙背景下教师最重视和最常用的评估方法。结果是通过对五所葡萄牙公立大学(185人)所有专业类别和学习周期的教员进行调查收集的,这些教员来自以下科学领域:硬科学、工程和技术科学、医学和健康科学、社会科学和人文科学。探索性因子分析(EFA)结果表明,两种量表均存在三因素模型:集体方法、组合与反思方法和个体方法。在随后的分析中,“笔试和考试”项目被独立地视为可观察变量。描述性统计的结果表明,更多地使用笔试和考试,而较少使用作品集和反思。数据还表明,根据研究周期、知识领域和教学培训,在使用评价方法方面存在统计上的显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Métodos de Avaliação das Aprendizagens em Universidades Públicas Portuguesas: Um Estudo Quantitativo
This article is part of a broader research project aimed at identifying the most valued and most used assessment methods by faculty in the Portuguese context. The results were collected through a survey with faculty from five Portuguese public universities (n=185) in all professional categories and cycles of study, of the following scientific areas: Hard Sciences, Engineering and Technology Sciences, Medical and Health Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities. The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) results indicated a three factors model for both scales:  collective methods, portfolios and reflections, and individual methods. The item “written tests and exams” was treated in subsequent analysis independently as observable variable. The results of descriptive statistics identify a greater valorisation and use of written tests and exams and a lower valorisation and use of portfolios and reflections. Data also suggest statistically significant differences in the use of assessment methods according to the cycles of study, the area of knowledge and pedagogical training.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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