小学生对科学课形成性评价的态度

Amadea Đurinić, Ines Hraste, Ante Kolak
{"title":"小学生对科学课形成性评价的态度","authors":"Amadea Đurinić, Ines Hraste, Ante Kolak","doi":"10.38003/sv.71.1.13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses formative assessment in Sciences class, which integrates the knowledge of natural and social sciences. In formative assessment there are two different assessment processes – assessment for learning and assessment as learning. Both approaches value the idea of students’ individual progress, and they have a pedocentric orientation. The paper focuses on assessment techniques used in class, which is operationalised in the empirical section of the paper. We established a hierarchical structure of offered techniques according to the criterium of usefulness. The students expressed their views on the process of self-evaluation and peer-evaluation in four dimensions (liking, difficulty, help with learning and discomfort). The approach to research is quantitative. The results show that the techniques we can find at the bottom of the hierarchy are the techniques which require a more complex cognitive deliberation. There is a positive attitude towards self-evaluation and peer-evaluation. In establishing the difference between attitudes in the dimension of help with learning there is a lack of recognition of the potential of peer-evaluation. This paper confirms the importance of formative assessment and points to the need for further research.","PeriodicalId":138779,"journal":{"name":"Školski vjesnik","volume":"364 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pupils' attitudes to formative assessment in sciences class\",\"authors\":\"Amadea Đurinić, Ines Hraste, Ante Kolak\",\"doi\":\"10.38003/sv.71.1.13\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper discusses formative assessment in Sciences class, which integrates the knowledge of natural and social sciences. In formative assessment there are two different assessment processes – assessment for learning and assessment as learning. Both approaches value the idea of students’ individual progress, and they have a pedocentric orientation. The paper focuses on assessment techniques used in class, which is operationalised in the empirical section of the paper. We established a hierarchical structure of offered techniques according to the criterium of usefulness. The students expressed their views on the process of self-evaluation and peer-evaluation in four dimensions (liking, difficulty, help with learning and discomfort). The approach to research is quantitative. The results show that the techniques we can find at the bottom of the hierarchy are the techniques which require a more complex cognitive deliberation. There is a positive attitude towards self-evaluation and peer-evaluation. In establishing the difference between attitudes in the dimension of help with learning there is a lack of recognition of the potential of peer-evaluation. This paper confirms the importance of formative assessment and points to the need for further research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":138779,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Školski vjesnik\",\"volume\":\"364 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Školski vjesnik\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.38003/sv.71.1.13\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Školski vjesnik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38003/sv.71.1.13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了自然科学与社会科学相结合的科学课形成性评价。在形成性评价中有两种不同的评价过程——学习评价和作为学习评价。这两种方法都重视学生的个人进步,并且都以儿童为中心。本文着重于课堂上使用的评估技术,这在论文的实证部分进行了操作。我们根据有用性标准建立了提供技术的层次结构。学生从喜欢、困难、学习帮助和不舒服四个维度表达了对自我评价和同伴评价过程的看法。研究的方法是定量的。结果表明,我们可以在层次结构的底部找到的技术是需要更复杂的认知审议的技术。对自我评价和同伴评价持积极态度。在确定学习帮助维度上的态度差异时,缺乏对同伴评价潜力的认识。本文肯定了形成性评价的重要性,并指出了进一步研究的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pupils' attitudes to formative assessment in sciences class
This paper discusses formative assessment in Sciences class, which integrates the knowledge of natural and social sciences. In formative assessment there are two different assessment processes – assessment for learning and assessment as learning. Both approaches value the idea of students’ individual progress, and they have a pedocentric orientation. The paper focuses on assessment techniques used in class, which is operationalised in the empirical section of the paper. We established a hierarchical structure of offered techniques according to the criterium of usefulness. The students expressed their views on the process of self-evaluation and peer-evaluation in four dimensions (liking, difficulty, help with learning and discomfort). The approach to research is quantitative. The results show that the techniques we can find at the bottom of the hierarchy are the techniques which require a more complex cognitive deliberation. There is a positive attitude towards self-evaluation and peer-evaluation. In establishing the difference between attitudes in the dimension of help with learning there is a lack of recognition of the potential of peer-evaluation. This paper confirms the importance of formative assessment and points to the need for further research.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信