衡量重要的东西:调查新型评估对学生在线资源评价的启示

Joel Breakstone, Sarah McGrew, Mark Smith
{"title":"衡量重要的东西:调查新型评估对学生在线资源评价的启示","authors":"Joel Breakstone, Sarah McGrew, Mark Smith","doi":"10.37016/mr-2020-133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A growing number of educational interventions have shown that students can learn the strategies fact checkers use to efficiently evaluate online information. Measuring the effectiveness of these interventions has required new approaches to assessment because extant measures reveal too little about the processes students use to evaluate live internet sources. In this paper, we analyze two types of assessments developed to meet the need for new measures. We describe what these assessments reveal about student thinking and how they provide practitioners, policymakers, and researchers options for measuring participants’ evaluative strategies.","PeriodicalId":93289,"journal":{"name":"Harvard Kennedy School misinformation review","volume":"83 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring what matters: Investigating what new types of assessments reveal about students’ online source evaluations\",\"authors\":\"Joel Breakstone, Sarah McGrew, Mark Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.37016/mr-2020-133\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A growing number of educational interventions have shown that students can learn the strategies fact checkers use to efficiently evaluate online information. Measuring the effectiveness of these interventions has required new approaches to assessment because extant measures reveal too little about the processes students use to evaluate live internet sources. In this paper, we analyze two types of assessments developed to meet the need for new measures. We describe what these assessments reveal about student thinking and how they provide practitioners, policymakers, and researchers options for measuring participants’ evaluative strategies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Harvard Kennedy School misinformation review\",\"volume\":\"83 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Harvard Kennedy School misinformation review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-133\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard Kennedy School misinformation review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-133","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

越来越多的教育干预措施表明,学生可以学习事实核查人员有效评估网络信息的策略。衡量这些干预措施的有效性需要新的评估方法,因为现有的评估方法对学生评估实时互联网信息来源的过程揭示得太少。在本文中,我们分析了为满足对新评估方法的需求而开发的两种评估方法。我们描述了这些评估对学生思维的揭示,以及它们如何为从业人员、政策制定者和研究人员提供衡量参与者评估策略的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Measuring what matters: Investigating what new types of assessments reveal about students’ online source evaluations
A growing number of educational interventions have shown that students can learn the strategies fact checkers use to efficiently evaluate online information. Measuring the effectiveness of these interventions has required new approaches to assessment because extant measures reveal too little about the processes students use to evaluate live internet sources. In this paper, we analyze two types of assessments developed to meet the need for new measures. We describe what these assessments reveal about student thinking and how they provide practitioners, policymakers, and researchers options for measuring participants’ evaluative strategies.
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
CiteScore
20.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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