数学自我效能感与数学问题解决:使用不同评估形式的意义

IF 2.2 4区 教育学 Q1 Social Sciences
Frank Pajares, M. David Miller
{"title":"数学自我效能感与数学问题解决:使用不同评估形式的意义","authors":"Frank Pajares, M. David Miller","doi":"10.1080/00220973.1997.9943455","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The mathematics self-efficacy and problem-solving performance of 327 middle-school students were assessed using two forms of assessment (traditional multiple-choice vs. open-ended fill-in-the-blank). The purpose was to determine whether varying the assessment format would influence students' self-efficacy judgments or alter the relationship between self-efficacy and performance. No differences in self-efficacy resulted from the different forms of assessment Students who took the multiple-choice performance test obtained higher scores than did students who took the open-ended test The latter group had poorer calibration, that is, the degree to which students' judgments of their capability reflect their actual competence. This finding suggests that students' self-perceptions of their mathematics capability may be less accurate than has previously been reported or that students' familiarity with traditional assessment formats creates an expectancy of a performance task that is multiple choice in nat...","PeriodicalId":47911,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Education","volume":"65 1","pages":"213-228"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00220973.1997.9943455","citationCount":"173","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mathematics Self-Efficacy and Mathematical Problem Solving: Implications of Using Different Forms of Assessment\",\"authors\":\"Frank Pajares, M. David Miller\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00220973.1997.9943455\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The mathematics self-efficacy and problem-solving performance of 327 middle-school students were assessed using two forms of assessment (traditional multiple-choice vs. open-ended fill-in-the-blank). The purpose was to determine whether varying the assessment format would influence students' self-efficacy judgments or alter the relationship between self-efficacy and performance. No differences in self-efficacy resulted from the different forms of assessment Students who took the multiple-choice performance test obtained higher scores than did students who took the open-ended test The latter group had poorer calibration, that is, the degree to which students' judgments of their capability reflect their actual competence. This finding suggests that students' self-perceptions of their mathematics capability may be less accurate than has previously been reported or that students' familiarity with traditional assessment formats creates an expectancy of a performance task that is multiple choice in nat...\",\"PeriodicalId\":47911,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Education\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"213-228\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00220973.1997.9943455\",\"citationCount\":\"173\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1997.9943455\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1997.9943455","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 173

摘要

摘要采用传统选择题和开放式填空两种形式对327名中学生的数学自我效能感和问题解决能力进行了测评。目的是确定不同的评估格式是否会影响学生的自我效能判断或改变自我效能与绩效之间的关系。自我效能感的差异不因评估形式的不同而产生。参加选择题表现测试的学生比参加开放式测试的学生得分更高,后者的校准较差,即学生对自己能力的判断反映实际能力的程度。这一发现表明,学生对自己数学能力的自我认知可能不如之前报道的那么准确,或者学生对传统评估形式的熟悉产生了对多项选择题的期望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mathematics Self-Efficacy and Mathematical Problem Solving: Implications of Using Different Forms of Assessment
Abstract The mathematics self-efficacy and problem-solving performance of 327 middle-school students were assessed using two forms of assessment (traditional multiple-choice vs. open-ended fill-in-the-blank). The purpose was to determine whether varying the assessment format would influence students' self-efficacy judgments or alter the relationship between self-efficacy and performance. No differences in self-efficacy resulted from the different forms of assessment Students who took the multiple-choice performance test obtained higher scores than did students who took the open-ended test The latter group had poorer calibration, that is, the degree to which students' judgments of their capability reflect their actual competence. This finding suggests that students' self-perceptions of their mathematics capability may be less accurate than has previously been reported or that students' familiarity with traditional assessment formats creates an expectancy of a performance task that is multiple choice in nat...
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
6.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Education publishes theoretical, laboratory, and classroom research studies that use the range of quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Recent articles have explored the correlation between test preparation and performance, enhancing students" self-efficacy, the effects of peer collaboration among students, and arguments about statistical significance and effect size reporting. In recent issues, JXE has published examinations of statistical methodologies and editorial practices used in several educational research journals.
×
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