The Differences of Perceived Efficacy Between Pupils and Experts in Fostering 21st-Century Skills

Chi-Syan Lin, Cheng-Ying Lin
{"title":"The Differences of Perceived Efficacy Between Pupils and Experts in Fostering 21st-Century Skills","authors":"Chi-Syan Lin, Cheng-Ying Lin","doi":"10.4018/ijcdlm.290386","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examines differences of perceived efficacy on blended PBL in fostering 21st century skills between pupils’ self-assessment and teachers’ expert assessment. For collecting empirical data, an international collaborative learning program with PBL courses is embodied online for a 10-week span. Two rubrics are administered to pupils and their corresponding teachers at the end of the learning program respectively. In addition to acknowledge that self-assessment is a tool with validity in an authentic learning environment, results of the study reveals that self-assessment and expert assessment have their own roles to play respectively while evaluating the broad range of competencies. Whereas covering different domains of competencies, self-assessment and expert assessment could compensate each other in measurement. In light of the emerging PBL in the future of schooling, the study suggests conducting more empirical studies to verify the validity and the strength of self-assessment on competencies in authentic learning environments.","PeriodicalId":340791,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Curriculum Development and Learning Measurement","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Curriculum Development and Learning Measurement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcdlm.290386","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examines differences of perceived efficacy on blended PBL in fostering 21st century skills between pupils’ self-assessment and teachers’ expert assessment. For collecting empirical data, an international collaborative learning program with PBL courses is embodied online for a 10-week span. Two rubrics are administered to pupils and their corresponding teachers at the end of the learning program respectively. In addition to acknowledge that self-assessment is a tool with validity in an authentic learning environment, results of the study reveals that self-assessment and expert assessment have their own roles to play respectively while evaluating the broad range of competencies. Whereas covering different domains of competencies, self-assessment and expert assessment could compensate each other in measurement. In light of the emerging PBL in the future of schooling, the study suggests conducting more empirical studies to verify the validity and the strength of self-assessment on competencies in authentic learning environments.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
学生与专家在培养21世纪技能方面的感知效能差异
本研究考察了学生自我评价与教师专家评价对混合式PBL培养21世纪技能的感知效能的差异。为了收集经验数据,一个国际合作学习计划与PBL课程体现在网上,为期10周。在学习计划结束时,分别给学生和相应的老师两份试卷。除了承认自我评估在真实的学习环境中是一种有效的工具外,研究结果还揭示了自我评估和专家评估在评估广泛的能力时各自发挥的作用。自评与专家评虽然涵盖不同的能力领域,但在测量上可以相互弥补。鉴于未来学校教育中出现的PBL,本研究建议进行更多的实证研究来验证真实学习环境中能力自我评估的有效性和强度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Adult Education and Empathy Gender Gap in Science Education Quantitative Analysis of Online Teaching and Learning Techniques and the 2019 English Language Proficiency Assessment Levels in a Tri-State Region A Content Analysis of Secondary School Department Leader Position Descriptions What Can Data Tell Us?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1