通过专家判断的个人学习路径形式化模型的验证

Q4 Social Sciences
Rubén Buitrago, Jesús Salinas, Oscar Boude
{"title":"通过专家判断的个人学习路径形式化模型的验证","authors":"Rubén Buitrago, Jesús Salinas, Oscar Boude","doi":"10.33423/jhetp.v23i12.6283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Personalized learning pathways enable students to take an active role in their learning. Therefore, the development of models that facilitate their design is crucial. This study aims to validate a model for formalizing personalized learning pathways for higher education students using the expert judgment technique. Two questionnaires were designed to validate content and internal consistency, respectively. The content was validated by a group of experts (n=12), while the internal consistency was validated by a nominal group (n=8). The results of content validity were satisfactory, and the level of agreement between judges, as measured by Kendall’s W test, was statistically significant in the implementation (p=0.007) and reflection (p=0.035) phases. To increase internal consistency, the study recommends implementing a simplified implementation scheme, adjusting the start-up phase in the conditional components (teacher digital literacy and technological environment), and incorporating teacher-student co-design. The improved ACDGE model emerges as a standard for designing learning pathways for higher education, minimizing the need to search for solutions to known problems.","PeriodicalId":16005,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Higher Education, Theory, and Practice","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of a Model for the Formalization of Personal Learning Pathways Through Expert Judgment\",\"authors\":\"Rubén Buitrago, Jesús Salinas, Oscar Boude\",\"doi\":\"10.33423/jhetp.v23i12.6283\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Personalized learning pathways enable students to take an active role in their learning. Therefore, the development of models that facilitate their design is crucial. This study aims to validate a model for formalizing personalized learning pathways for higher education students using the expert judgment technique. Two questionnaires were designed to validate content and internal consistency, respectively. The content was validated by a group of experts (n=12), while the internal consistency was validated by a nominal group (n=8). The results of content validity were satisfactory, and the level of agreement between judges, as measured by Kendall’s W test, was statistically significant in the implementation (p=0.007) and reflection (p=0.035) phases. To increase internal consistency, the study recommends implementing a simplified implementation scheme, adjusting the start-up phase in the conditional components (teacher digital literacy and technological environment), and incorporating teacher-student co-design. The improved ACDGE model emerges as a standard for designing learning pathways for higher education, minimizing the need to search for solutions to known problems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16005,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Higher Education, Theory, and Practice\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Higher Education, Theory, and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v23i12.6283\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Higher Education, Theory, and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v23i12.6283","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

个性化的学习途径使学生在学习中发挥积极的作用。因此,开发便于其设计的模型是至关重要的。本研究旨在利用专家判断技术,验证高等教育学生个性化学习路径的形式化模型。设计了两份问卷,分别对内容和内部一致性进行验证。内容由一组专家(n=12)验证,内部一致性由名义组(n=8)验证。内容效度结果令人满意,通过Kendall 's W检验,在执行阶段(p=0.007)和反思阶段(p=0.035),法官之间的一致性水平具有统计学意义。为了增加内部一致性,本研究建议实施简化的实施方案,调整条件组成部分(教师数字素养和技术环境)的启动阶段,并纳入师生协同设计。改进后的ACDGE模型成为设计高等教育学习途径的标准,最大限度地减少了为已知问题寻找解决方案的需要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validation of a Model for the Formalization of Personal Learning Pathways Through Expert Judgment
Personalized learning pathways enable students to take an active role in their learning. Therefore, the development of models that facilitate their design is crucial. This study aims to validate a model for formalizing personalized learning pathways for higher education students using the expert judgment technique. Two questionnaires were designed to validate content and internal consistency, respectively. The content was validated by a group of experts (n=12), while the internal consistency was validated by a nominal group (n=8). The results of content validity were satisfactory, and the level of agreement between judges, as measured by Kendall’s W test, was statistically significant in the implementation (p=0.007) and reflection (p=0.035) phases. To increase internal consistency, the study recommends implementing a simplified implementation scheme, adjusting the start-up phase in the conditional components (teacher digital literacy and technological environment), and incorporating teacher-student co-design. The improved ACDGE model emerges as a standard for designing learning pathways for higher education, minimizing the need to search for solutions to known problems.
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
271
×
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