反馈实践和数据分析的透明度

IF 2.7 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Therese N. Hopfenbeck
{"title":"反馈实践和数据分析的透明度","authors":"Therese N. Hopfenbeck","doi":"10.1080/0969594X.2023.2194706","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It has been well documented in the literature that feedback processes, when used timely and with high quality, can enhance students’ learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, Van Der Kleij & Lipnevich, 2021). Unfortunately, despite decades of research in feedback and formative assessment processes, we have few empirical studies investigating such feedback processes. We lack knowledge on how students act upon the feedback they receive, and even less studies apply experimental designs. The first article in this issue offers an important exception. Lipnevich et al. (2023) have conducted a study where the research team examined the influence of feedback comments and praise on student motivation and whether it had any impact on their performance. A total of 147 university students wrote an essay draft, received feedback (detailed comments, detailed comments and praise or control) before they revised their essays to address the feedback they had received. The study confirmed previous studies, documenting that those students who received the detailed feedback comments demonstrated higher motivation than students in the control group, but also greater improvement on their academic work. Further, students who received praise reported lower motivation and reduced improvement, compared to students who did not receive praise in addition to detailed comments. The research team discuss the paradoxical effects of praise and recommendations are provided on how to handle praise wisely in higher education. The second article published by Fresko and Levy-Feldman (2023) outlines the topic of teacher evaluation, an area which continues to be controversial across countries globally. In the current study, the researchers collected data from 219 school principals in Israel to investigate the purpose of teachers’ evaluations used. Analysis of the data indicated that teacher evaluations were mainly used for improvement rather than for administrative reasons. Further, it is reported that for teacher evaluation to benefit schools, principals believe adequate training for the task improves the processes. The research team discussthe implications of the findings and how to better support school principals in their role as evaluators. The third article in this issue tackle a controversial issue, with respect to sampling in OECD’s international assessment study, Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Andersson & Sandgren Massih (2023) have used data from PISA 2018 and investigated whether the students’ exclusions from PISA 2018 in Sweden followed the criteria set by the OECD. Since the inception of PISA in 2000, each of the participating countries have had to follow regulations on which students could be excluded (OECD, 2019a, b), and each country must report the exclusion rate of students. As such, some countries have reported higher exclusion rates than others. The authors of the current article have investigated what happened in Sweden when data were collected in 2018, using both qualitative and quantitative data analyses. They conclude that the exclusion rate in Sweden in PISA ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE 2023, VOL. 30, NO. 1, 1–3 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2023.2194706","PeriodicalId":51515,"journal":{"name":"Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feedback practices and transparency in data analysis\",\"authors\":\"Therese N. Hopfenbeck\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0969594X.2023.2194706\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It has been well documented in the literature that feedback processes, when used timely and with high quality, can enhance students’ learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, Van Der Kleij & Lipnevich, 2021). Unfortunately, despite decades of research in feedback and formative assessment processes, we have few empirical studies investigating such feedback processes. We lack knowledge on how students act upon the feedback they receive, and even less studies apply experimental designs. The first article in this issue offers an important exception. Lipnevich et al. (2023) have conducted a study where the research team examined the influence of feedback comments and praise on student motivation and whether it had any impact on their performance. A total of 147 university students wrote an essay draft, received feedback (detailed comments, detailed comments and praise or control) before they revised their essays to address the feedback they had received. The study confirmed previous studies, documenting that those students who received the detailed feedback comments demonstrated higher motivation than students in the control group, but also greater improvement on their academic work. Further, students who received praise reported lower motivation and reduced improvement, compared to students who did not receive praise in addition to detailed comments. The research team discuss the paradoxical effects of praise and recommendations are provided on how to handle praise wisely in higher education. The second article published by Fresko and Levy-Feldman (2023) outlines the topic of teacher evaluation, an area which continues to be controversial across countries globally. In the current study, the researchers collected data from 219 school principals in Israel to investigate the purpose of teachers’ evaluations used. Analysis of the data indicated that teacher evaluations were mainly used for improvement rather than for administrative reasons. Further, it is reported that for teacher evaluation to benefit schools, principals believe adequate training for the task improves the processes. The research team discussthe implications of the findings and how to better support school principals in their role as evaluators. The third article in this issue tackle a controversial issue, with respect to sampling in OECD’s international assessment study, Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Andersson & Sandgren Massih (2023) have used data from PISA 2018 and investigated whether the students’ exclusions from PISA 2018 in Sweden followed the criteria set by the OECD. Since the inception of PISA in 2000, each of the participating countries have had to follow regulations on which students could be excluded (OECD, 2019a, b), and each country must report the exclusion rate of students. As such, some countries have reported higher exclusion rates than others. The authors of the current article have investigated what happened in Sweden when data were collected in 2018, using both qualitative and quantitative data analyses. They conclude that the exclusion rate in Sweden in PISA ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE 2023, VOL. 30, NO. 1, 1–3 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2023.2194706\",\"PeriodicalId\":51515,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2023.2194706\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2023.2194706","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

文献充分证明,及时、高质量地使用反馈过程可以提高学生的学习效果(Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Van Der Kleij & Lipnevich, 2021)。不幸的是,尽管对反馈和形成性评估过程进行了数十年的研究,我们很少有实证研究来调查这种反馈过程。我们不知道学生如何根据他们收到的反馈采取行动,应用实验设计的研究就更少了。本期的第一篇文章提供了一个重要的例外。Lipnevich et al.(2023)进行了一项研究,研究小组研究了反馈评论和表扬对学生动机的影响,以及是否对他们的表现有任何影响。共有147名大学生写了一篇论文草稿,收到了反馈(详细评论,详细评论和表扬或控制),然后他们修改了他们的文章,以解决他们收到的反馈。这项研究证实了之前的研究,记录了那些收到详细反馈意见的学生比对照组的学生表现出更高的动机,而且在学业上也有了更大的进步。此外,与没有得到表扬和详细评论的学生相比,得到表扬的学生表现出较低的动力和较低的进步。研究小组讨论了表扬的矛盾效应,并就如何在高等教育中明智地处理表扬提出了建议。Fresko和Levy-Feldman(2023)发表的第二篇文章概述了教师评估的主题,这一领域在全球各国仍然存在争议。在目前的研究中,研究人员收集了以色列219所学校校长的数据,以调查使用教师评估的目的。数据分析表明,教师评价主要用于改进,而不是出于行政原因。此外,据报道,为了使教师评价对学校有利,校长们认为充分的培训可以改善评估过程。研究小组讨论了研究结果的意义,以及如何更好地支持校长作为评估者的角色。这期的第三篇文章解决了一个有争议的问题,关于经合组织国际评估研究的抽样,国际学生评估计划(PISA)。Andersson & Sandgren Massih(2023)使用了2018年PISA的数据,并调查了瑞典学生被排除在2018年PISA之外是否符合经合组织制定的标准。自2000年PISA成立以来,每个参与国都必须遵守有关学生可以被排除在外的规定(OECD, 2019a, b),每个国家都必须报告学生的排除率。因此,一些国家报告的排斥率高于其他国家。本文的作者使用定性和定量数据分析,调查了2018年收集数据时瑞典发生的情况。他们得出结论,瑞典在PISA评估中的排他率在教育:原则,政策和实践2023,VOL. 30, NO. 5。1,1 - 3 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2023.2194706
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Feedback practices and transparency in data analysis
It has been well documented in the literature that feedback processes, when used timely and with high quality, can enhance students’ learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, Van Der Kleij & Lipnevich, 2021). Unfortunately, despite decades of research in feedback and formative assessment processes, we have few empirical studies investigating such feedback processes. We lack knowledge on how students act upon the feedback they receive, and even less studies apply experimental designs. The first article in this issue offers an important exception. Lipnevich et al. (2023) have conducted a study where the research team examined the influence of feedback comments and praise on student motivation and whether it had any impact on their performance. A total of 147 university students wrote an essay draft, received feedback (detailed comments, detailed comments and praise or control) before they revised their essays to address the feedback they had received. The study confirmed previous studies, documenting that those students who received the detailed feedback comments demonstrated higher motivation than students in the control group, but also greater improvement on their academic work. Further, students who received praise reported lower motivation and reduced improvement, compared to students who did not receive praise in addition to detailed comments. The research team discuss the paradoxical effects of praise and recommendations are provided on how to handle praise wisely in higher education. The second article published by Fresko and Levy-Feldman (2023) outlines the topic of teacher evaluation, an area which continues to be controversial across countries globally. In the current study, the researchers collected data from 219 school principals in Israel to investigate the purpose of teachers’ evaluations used. Analysis of the data indicated that teacher evaluations were mainly used for improvement rather than for administrative reasons. Further, it is reported that for teacher evaluation to benefit schools, principals believe adequate training for the task improves the processes. The research team discussthe implications of the findings and how to better support school principals in their role as evaluators. The third article in this issue tackle a controversial issue, with respect to sampling in OECD’s international assessment study, Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Andersson & Sandgren Massih (2023) have used data from PISA 2018 and investigated whether the students’ exclusions from PISA 2018 in Sweden followed the criteria set by the OECD. Since the inception of PISA in 2000, each of the participating countries have had to follow regulations on which students could be excluded (OECD, 2019a, b), and each country must report the exclusion rate of students. As such, some countries have reported higher exclusion rates than others. The authors of the current article have investigated what happened in Sweden when data were collected in 2018, using both qualitative and quantitative data analyses. They conclude that the exclusion rate in Sweden in PISA ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE 2023, VOL. 30, NO. 1, 1–3 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2023.2194706
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
Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice
Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
3.10%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Recent decades have witnessed significant developments in the field of educational assessment. New approaches to the assessment of student achievement have been complemented by the increasing prominence of educational assessment as a policy issue. In particular, there has been a growth of interest in modes of assessment that promote, as well as measure, standards and quality. These have profound implications for individual learners, institutions and the educational system itself. Assessment in Education provides a focus for scholarly output in the field of assessment. The journal is explicitly international in focus and encourages contributions from a wide range of assessment systems and cultures. The journal''s intention is to explore both commonalities and differences in policy and practice.
×
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