教师如何将仪表板整合到他们的反馈实践中

C. K. Campen, I. Molenaar
{"title":"教师如何将仪表板整合到他们的反馈实践中","authors":"C. K. Campen, I. Molenaar","doi":"10.14786/flr.v8i4.641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In technology empowered classrooms teachers receive real-time data about students' performance and progress on teacher dashboards. Dashboards have the potential to enhance teachers' feedback practices and complement human-prompted feedback that is initiated by teachers themselves or students asking questions. However, such enhancement requires teachers to integrate dashboards into their professional routines. How teachers shift between dashboard- and human-prompted feedback could be indicative of this integration. We therefore examined in 65 K-12 lessons: i) differences between human- and dashboard-prompted feedback; ii) how teachers alternated between human- and dashboard-prompted feedback (distribution patterns); and iii) how these distribution patterns were associated with the given feedback type: task, process, personal, metacognitive, and social feedback. The three sources of feedback resulted in different types of feedback: Teacher-prompted feedback was predominantly personal and student-prompted feedback mostly resulted in task feedback, whereas dashboard-prompted feedback was equally likely to be task, process, or personal feedback. We found two distribution patterns of dashboard-prompted feedback within a lesson: either given in one sequence together (blocked pattern) or alternated with student- and teacher-prompted feedback (mixed pattern). The distribution pattern affected the type of dashboard-prompted feedback given. In blocked patterns, dashboard-prompted feedback was mostly personal, whereas in mixed patterns task feedback was most prevalent. Hence, both sources of feedback instigation as well as the distribution of dashboard-prompted feedback affected the type of feedback given by teachers. Moreover, when teachers advanced the integration of dashboard-prompted feedback in their professional routines as indicated by mixed patterns, more effective types of feedback were given.","PeriodicalId":37057,"journal":{"name":"Frontline Learning Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.14786/flr.v8i4.641","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Teachers integrate Dashboards into their Feedback Practices\",\"authors\":\"C. K. Campen, I. Molenaar\",\"doi\":\"10.14786/flr.v8i4.641\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In technology empowered classrooms teachers receive real-time data about students' performance and progress on teacher dashboards. Dashboards have the potential to enhance teachers' feedback practices and complement human-prompted feedback that is initiated by teachers themselves or students asking questions. However, such enhancement requires teachers to integrate dashboards into their professional routines. How teachers shift between dashboard- and human-prompted feedback could be indicative of this integration. We therefore examined in 65 K-12 lessons: i) differences between human- and dashboard-prompted feedback; ii) how teachers alternated between human- and dashboard-prompted feedback (distribution patterns); and iii) how these distribution patterns were associated with the given feedback type: task, process, personal, metacognitive, and social feedback. The three sources of feedback resulted in different types of feedback: Teacher-prompted feedback was predominantly personal and student-prompted feedback mostly resulted in task feedback, whereas dashboard-prompted feedback was equally likely to be task, process, or personal feedback. We found two distribution patterns of dashboard-prompted feedback within a lesson: either given in one sequence together (blocked pattern) or alternated with student- and teacher-prompted feedback (mixed pattern). The distribution pattern affected the type of dashboard-prompted feedback given. In blocked patterns, dashboard-prompted feedback was mostly personal, whereas in mixed patterns task feedback was most prevalent. Hence, both sources of feedback instigation as well as the distribution of dashboard-prompted feedback affected the type of feedback given by teachers. Moreover, when teachers advanced the integration of dashboard-prompted feedback in their professional routines as indicated by mixed patterns, more effective types of feedback were given.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37057,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontline Learning Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.14786/flr.v8i4.641\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontline Learning Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v8i4.641\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontline Learning Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v8i4.641","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

在技术增强的课堂中,教师在教师仪表板上接收有关学生表现和进步的实时数据。仪表板有可能加强教师的反馈实践,并补充由教师自己或学生提出问题的人为反馈。然而,这种增强需要教师将仪表板集成到他们的专业日常工作中。教师如何在仪表板和人工提示的反馈之间转换可能表明了这种整合。因此,我们在65节K-12课程中研究了:i)人工和仪表板提示反馈之间的差异;ii)教师如何在人工和仪表板提示的反馈之间交替(分布模式);以及iii)这些分布模式如何与给定的反馈类型相关:任务、过程、个人、元认知和社会反馈。三种反馈来源导致了不同类型的反馈:教师提示的反馈主要是个人反馈,学生提示的反馈大多导致任务反馈,而仪表板提示的反馈同样可能是任务、过程或个人反馈。我们发现,在一节课中,仪表板提示的反馈有两种分布模式:要么按一个顺序一起给出(阻塞模式),要么与学生和老师提示的反馈交替出现(混合模式)。分布模式影响了仪表板提示反馈的类型。在阻塞模式中,仪表板提示的反馈大多是个人的,而在混合模式中,任务反馈最为普遍。因此,反馈煽动的来源以及仪表板提示反馈的分布都会影响教师给出的反馈类型。此外,当教师在他们的专业日常生活中推进仪表板提示反馈的集成(如混合模式所示)时,会给出更有效的反馈类型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Teachers integrate Dashboards into their Feedback Practices
In technology empowered classrooms teachers receive real-time data about students' performance and progress on teacher dashboards. Dashboards have the potential to enhance teachers' feedback practices and complement human-prompted feedback that is initiated by teachers themselves or students asking questions. However, such enhancement requires teachers to integrate dashboards into their professional routines. How teachers shift between dashboard- and human-prompted feedback could be indicative of this integration. We therefore examined in 65 K-12 lessons: i) differences between human- and dashboard-prompted feedback; ii) how teachers alternated between human- and dashboard-prompted feedback (distribution patterns); and iii) how these distribution patterns were associated with the given feedback type: task, process, personal, metacognitive, and social feedback. The three sources of feedback resulted in different types of feedback: Teacher-prompted feedback was predominantly personal and student-prompted feedback mostly resulted in task feedback, whereas dashboard-prompted feedback was equally likely to be task, process, or personal feedback. We found two distribution patterns of dashboard-prompted feedback within a lesson: either given in one sequence together (blocked pattern) or alternated with student- and teacher-prompted feedback (mixed pattern). The distribution pattern affected the type of dashboard-prompted feedback given. In blocked patterns, dashboard-prompted feedback was mostly personal, whereas in mixed patterns task feedback was most prevalent. Hence, both sources of feedback instigation as well as the distribution of dashboard-prompted feedback affected the type of feedback given by teachers. Moreover, when teachers advanced the integration of dashboard-prompted feedback in their professional routines as indicated by mixed patterns, more effective types of feedback were given.
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
Frontline Learning Research
Frontline Learning Research Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
×
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