谁是反馈对象?

IF 2.7 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Therese N. Hopfenbeck
{"title":"谁是反馈对象?","authors":"Therese N. Hopfenbeck","doi":"10.1080/0969594X.2021.1975996","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The articles in this regular issue look at different forms of assessment practices such as grading and feedback and how stakeholders interact with the outcomes of these practices. The first article presents a research study from Sweden on holistic and analytic grading. As grades are the main criteria for selecting schools for higher education, and they are based upon teachers’ judgement, grading is rather high stakes for students in Sweden. Johnson et al. (this issue) set up an experimental study where Swedish teachers were randomly assigned to two different conditions (i.e. analytic or holistic grading), in either English as a foreign language (EFL) or mathematics. The research study was conducted online, with only grades and written justification from the teachers collected by the research team. In the analytic condition, teachers received authentic student responses from four students four times, and were asked to grade these through an Internet-based form. At the end of the semester, teachers were asked to provide an overall grade. In the holistic condition, teachers received all material at one time, and would therefore not be influenced by previous experiences. Findings indicate that analytic grading was preferable to holistic grading in terms of agreement among teachers, with stronger effects found in EFL. Teachers in the analytic conditions made more references to grade levels without specifying criteria, while teachers in the holistic conditions provided more references to criteria in their justifications. Although the participants volunteered for the experiment and it was relatively small, the study offers important empirical results in an area where there are still more questions than solutions. The authors propose further investigations into how to increase agreement between teachers’ grading, including using moderation procedures where teachers could review each other’s grading. In the second article, Yan et al. (this issue) present a systematic review on factors influencing teacher’s intentions and implementations regarding formative assessment. The 52 studies included in the qualitative synthesis discuss issues such as how teachers’ selfefficacy and education and training, influence their intention to conduct formative assessment, and add to previous reviews on implementation of formative assessment. More specifically, it demonstrates how not only contextual but also personal factors need to be taken into consideration when designing school-based support measures or teacher professional development programmes with the aim to promote formative assessment practices. In the article Who is feedback for? The influence of accountability and quality assurance agendas on the enactment of feedback processes, Winstone & Cardiff (this issue) explore the consequences of the evaluation and accountability measures in higher education in UK, and how it influences and interacts with feedback processes from teachers to students. The study is of importance, as we have less knowledge of the unintended consequences of the current accountability system, which at the best can improve ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE 2021, VOL. 28, NO. 3, 209–211 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1975996","PeriodicalId":51515,"journal":{"name":"Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who is feedback for?\",\"authors\":\"Therese N. Hopfenbeck\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0969594X.2021.1975996\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The articles in this regular issue look at different forms of assessment practices such as grading and feedback and how stakeholders interact with the outcomes of these practices. The first article presents a research study from Sweden on holistic and analytic grading. As grades are the main criteria for selecting schools for higher education, and they are based upon teachers’ judgement, grading is rather high stakes for students in Sweden. Johnson et al. (this issue) set up an experimental study where Swedish teachers were randomly assigned to two different conditions (i.e. analytic or holistic grading), in either English as a foreign language (EFL) or mathematics. The research study was conducted online, with only grades and written justification from the teachers collected by the research team. In the analytic condition, teachers received authentic student responses from four students four times, and were asked to grade these through an Internet-based form. At the end of the semester, teachers were asked to provide an overall grade. In the holistic condition, teachers received all material at one time, and would therefore not be influenced by previous experiences. Findings indicate that analytic grading was preferable to holistic grading in terms of agreement among teachers, with stronger effects found in EFL. Teachers in the analytic conditions made more references to grade levels without specifying criteria, while teachers in the holistic conditions provided more references to criteria in their justifications. Although the participants volunteered for the experiment and it was relatively small, the study offers important empirical results in an area where there are still more questions than solutions. The authors propose further investigations into how to increase agreement between teachers’ grading, including using moderation procedures where teachers could review each other’s grading. In the second article, Yan et al. (this issue) present a systematic review on factors influencing teacher’s intentions and implementations regarding formative assessment. The 52 studies included in the qualitative synthesis discuss issues such as how teachers’ selfefficacy and education and training, influence their intention to conduct formative assessment, and add to previous reviews on implementation of formative assessment. More specifically, it demonstrates how not only contextual but also personal factors need to be taken into consideration when designing school-based support measures or teacher professional development programmes with the aim to promote formative assessment practices. In the article Who is feedback for? The influence of accountability and quality assurance agendas on the enactment of feedback processes, Winstone & Cardiff (this issue) explore the consequences of the evaluation and accountability measures in higher education in UK, and how it influences and interacts with feedback processes from teachers to students. The study is of importance, as we have less knowledge of the unintended consequences of the current accountability system, which at the best can improve ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE 2021, VOL. 28, NO. 3, 209–211 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1975996\",\"PeriodicalId\":51515,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-04\",\"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.2021.1975996\",\"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.2021.1975996","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

本期定期发行的文章着眼于不同形式的评估实践,例如分级和反馈,以及利益相关者如何与这些实践的结果相互作用。第一篇文章介绍了一项来自瑞典的关于整体和分析评分的研究。由于分数是选择高等教育学校的主要标准,而且分数是基于教师的判断,所以在瑞典,分数对学生来说是相当重要的。Johnson等人(本期)建立了一项实验研究,瑞典教师被随机分配到两种不同的条件下(即分析或整体评分),英语作为外语(EFL)或数学。这项研究是在网上进行的,只有研究小组收集的老师的分数和书面证明。在分析条件下,教师从四个学生那里收到四次真实的学生回答,并被要求通过基于互联网的表格对这些回答进行评分。在学期结束时,老师们被要求提供一个总体成绩。在整体条件下,教师一次接受所有的材料,因此不会受到以往经验的影响。研究结果表明,就教师的认同程度而言,分析性评分优于整体评分,在外语教学中效果更明显。在分析条件下,教师更多地参考年级水平,而没有明确的标准,而在整体条件下,教师在其理由中更多地参考标准。虽然参与者是自愿参加实验的,而且规模相对较小,但在一个问题多于解决方案的领域,这项研究提供了重要的实证结果。作者建议进一步研究如何增加教师评分的一致性,包括使用教师可以相互审查评分的调节程序。在第二篇文章中,Yan等人(本期)对影响教师形成性评估意图和实施的因素进行了系统回顾。定性综合中包含的52项研究讨论了教师的自我效能感和教育培训如何影响他们进行形成性评估的意愿等问题,并补充了先前对形成性评估实施情况的审查。更具体地说,它表明在设计以学校为基础的支持措施或教师专业发展方案以促进形成性评估做法时,不仅需要考虑环境因素,还需要考虑个人因素。在文章中,谁是反馈?问责制和质量保证议程对反馈过程制定的影响,Winstone & Cardiff(本期)探讨了英国高等教育中评估和问责制措施的后果,以及它如何影响并与教师对学生的反馈过程相互作用。这项研究很重要,因为我们对当前问责制的意外后果了解较少,这在最好的情况下可以改善教育评估:原则,政策与实践2021,VOL. 28, NO。3, 209-211 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1975996
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Who is feedback for?
The articles in this regular issue look at different forms of assessment practices such as grading and feedback and how stakeholders interact with the outcomes of these practices. The first article presents a research study from Sweden on holistic and analytic grading. As grades are the main criteria for selecting schools for higher education, and they are based upon teachers’ judgement, grading is rather high stakes for students in Sweden. Johnson et al. (this issue) set up an experimental study where Swedish teachers were randomly assigned to two different conditions (i.e. analytic or holistic grading), in either English as a foreign language (EFL) or mathematics. The research study was conducted online, with only grades and written justification from the teachers collected by the research team. In the analytic condition, teachers received authentic student responses from four students four times, and were asked to grade these through an Internet-based form. At the end of the semester, teachers were asked to provide an overall grade. In the holistic condition, teachers received all material at one time, and would therefore not be influenced by previous experiences. Findings indicate that analytic grading was preferable to holistic grading in terms of agreement among teachers, with stronger effects found in EFL. Teachers in the analytic conditions made more references to grade levels without specifying criteria, while teachers in the holistic conditions provided more references to criteria in their justifications. Although the participants volunteered for the experiment and it was relatively small, the study offers important empirical results in an area where there are still more questions than solutions. The authors propose further investigations into how to increase agreement between teachers’ grading, including using moderation procedures where teachers could review each other’s grading. In the second article, Yan et al. (this issue) present a systematic review on factors influencing teacher’s intentions and implementations regarding formative assessment. The 52 studies included in the qualitative synthesis discuss issues such as how teachers’ selfefficacy and education and training, influence their intention to conduct formative assessment, and add to previous reviews on implementation of formative assessment. More specifically, it demonstrates how not only contextual but also personal factors need to be taken into consideration when designing school-based support measures or teacher professional development programmes with the aim to promote formative assessment practices. In the article Who is feedback for? The influence of accountability and quality assurance agendas on the enactment of feedback processes, Winstone & Cardiff (this issue) explore the consequences of the evaluation and accountability measures in higher education in UK, and how it influences and interacts with feedback processes from teachers to students. The study is of importance, as we have less knowledge of the unintended consequences of the current accountability system, which at the best can improve ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE 2021, VOL. 28, NO. 3, 209–211 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1975996
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