{"title":"了解教师对学生学习动机的判断:无法获得的线索的作用","authors":"Jan Beck , Stephan Dutke , Till Utesch","doi":"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.102029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Accurately judging student motivation enables individualized and student-centered instruction. However, teachers in school tend to judge student motivation inaccurately. Low availability of motivation-related cues, like mastery-approach goals and work-avoidance goals, may explain neglecting these cues in judging motivation. Instead, gender and academic achievement might be overly utilized because they are easily available.</div></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><div>To test teachers’ utilization of highly and equally available cues when judging student motivation.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In the first vignette experiment, pre-service and in-service teachers (<em>N</em> = 205) judged eight fictitious students’ motivation sequentially. Teachers received either achievement goal cues (EG1) or additionally gender and academic achievement cues (EG2), creating an information-adequate environment. In Experiment 2, newly recruited pre-service and in-service teachers (<em>N</em> = 213) evaluated the same vignettes in the same groups, but vignettes were presented simultaneously, and cues had to be memorized, resulting in an information-rich environment. Teachers then formed judgments based solely on their memory without further access to the vignettes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>When teachers judged student motivation sequentially, they strongly used mastery-approach goals and work-avoidance goals—regardless of whether other cues were available. In memory-based judgments, teachers primarily used gender and academic achievement.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Results demonstrate that in information-rich environments where cues have to be memorized, teachers tend to overlook motivation-relevant cues. Instead, they focus more on cues that do not inherently indicate motivation. These findings suggest that teachers could benefit from assessment environments, like formative assessment, that allow for the direct processing of available cues to better judge student motivation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48357,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Instruction","volume":"95 ","pages":"Article 102029"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding teacher judgments of student motivation: The role of (un-)available cues\",\"authors\":\"Jan Beck , Stephan Dutke , Till Utesch\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.102029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Accurately judging student motivation enables individualized and student-centered instruction. However, teachers in school tend to judge student motivation inaccurately. Low availability of motivation-related cues, like mastery-approach goals and work-avoidance goals, may explain neglecting these cues in judging motivation. Instead, gender and academic achievement might be overly utilized because they are easily available.</div></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><div>To test teachers’ utilization of highly and equally available cues when judging student motivation.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In the first vignette experiment, pre-service and in-service teachers (<em>N</em> = 205) judged eight fictitious students’ motivation sequentially. Teachers received either achievement goal cues (EG1) or additionally gender and academic achievement cues (EG2), creating an information-adequate environment. In Experiment 2, newly recruited pre-service and in-service teachers (<em>N</em> = 213) evaluated the same vignettes in the same groups, but vignettes were presented simultaneously, and cues had to be memorized, resulting in an information-rich environment. Teachers then formed judgments based solely on their memory without further access to the vignettes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>When teachers judged student motivation sequentially, they strongly used mastery-approach goals and work-avoidance goals—regardless of whether other cues were available. In memory-based judgments, teachers primarily used gender and academic achievement.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Results demonstrate that in information-rich environments where cues have to be memorized, teachers tend to overlook motivation-relevant cues. Instead, they focus more on cues that do not inherently indicate motivation. These findings suggest that teachers could benefit from assessment environments, like formative assessment, that allow for the direct processing of available cues to better judge student motivation.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48357,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Learning and Instruction\",\"volume\":\"95 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102029\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-30\",\"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/S0959475224001567\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Instruction","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475224001567","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}
Understanding teacher judgments of student motivation: The role of (un-)available cues
Background
Accurately judging student motivation enables individualized and student-centered instruction. However, teachers in school tend to judge student motivation inaccurately. Low availability of motivation-related cues, like mastery-approach goals and work-avoidance goals, may explain neglecting these cues in judging motivation. Instead, gender and academic achievement might be overly utilized because they are easily available.
Aim
To test teachers’ utilization of highly and equally available cues when judging student motivation.
Methods
In the first vignette experiment, pre-service and in-service teachers (N = 205) judged eight fictitious students’ motivation sequentially. Teachers received either achievement goal cues (EG1) or additionally gender and academic achievement cues (EG2), creating an information-adequate environment. In Experiment 2, newly recruited pre-service and in-service teachers (N = 213) evaluated the same vignettes in the same groups, but vignettes were presented simultaneously, and cues had to be memorized, resulting in an information-rich environment. Teachers then formed judgments based solely on their memory without further access to the vignettes.
Results
When teachers judged student motivation sequentially, they strongly used mastery-approach goals and work-avoidance goals—regardless of whether other cues were available. In memory-based judgments, teachers primarily used gender and academic achievement.
Conclusions
Results demonstrate that in information-rich environments where cues have to be memorized, teachers tend to overlook motivation-relevant cues. Instead, they focus more on cues that do not inherently indicate motivation. These findings suggest that teachers could benefit from assessment environments, like formative assessment, that allow for the direct processing of available cues to better judge student motivation.
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.