Assessing the black box of feedback neglect in a digital educational game for elementary school

IF 3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of the Learning Sciences Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI:10.1080/10508406.2020.1770092
Betty Tärning, Y. Lee, Richard Andersson, Kristian Månsson, Agneta Gulz, Magnus Haake
{"title":"Assessing the black box of feedback neglect in a digital educational game for elementary school","authors":"Betty Tärning, Y. Lee, Richard Andersson, Kristian Månsson, Agneta Gulz, Magnus Haake","doi":"10.1080/10508406.2020.1770092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background: Previous research shows that critical constructive feedback, that scaffolds students to improve on tasks, often remains untapped. The paper’s aim is to illuminate at what stages students provided with such feedback drop out of feedback processing. Methods: In our model, students can drop out at any of five stages of feedback processing: (1) noticing, (2) decoding, (3) making sense, (4) acting upon, and (5) using feedback to make progress. Eye-tracking was used to measure noticing and decoding of feedback. Behavioral data-logging tracked students’ use of feedback and potential progress. Three feedback signaling conditions were experimentally compared: a pedagogical agent, an animated arrow, and no signaling (control condition). Findings: Students dropped out at each stage and few made it past the final stage. The agent condition led to significantly less feedback neglect at the two first stages, suggesting that students who are not initially inclined to notice and read feedback text can be influenced into doing so. Contribution: The study provides a model and method to build more fine-grained knowledge of students’ (non)processing of feedback. More knowledge on at what stages students drop out and why can inform methods to counteract drop out and scaffold more productive and fruitful responses.","PeriodicalId":48043,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":"511 - 549"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2020.1770092","RegionNum":1,"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: 9

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background: Previous research shows that critical constructive feedback, that scaffolds students to improve on tasks, often remains untapped. The paper’s aim is to illuminate at what stages students provided with such feedback drop out of feedback processing. Methods: In our model, students can drop out at any of five stages of feedback processing: (1) noticing, (2) decoding, (3) making sense, (4) acting upon, and (5) using feedback to make progress. Eye-tracking was used to measure noticing and decoding of feedback. Behavioral data-logging tracked students’ use of feedback and potential progress. Three feedback signaling conditions were experimentally compared: a pedagogical agent, an animated arrow, and no signaling (control condition). Findings: Students dropped out at each stage and few made it past the final stage. The agent condition led to significantly less feedback neglect at the two first stages, suggesting that students who are not initially inclined to notice and read feedback text can be influenced into doing so. Contribution: The study provides a model and method to build more fine-grained knowledge of students’ (non)processing of feedback. More knowledge on at what stages students drop out and why can inform methods to counteract drop out and scaffold more productive and fruitful responses.
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
评估小学数字教育游戏中反馈忽视的黑箱
摘要背景:以往的研究表明,关键的建设性反馈,即为学生提高任务的脚手架,往往尚未得到开发。本文的目的是阐明在什么阶段,学生提供这样的反馈退出反馈处理。方法:在我们的模型中,学生可以在反馈处理的五个阶段中的任何一个阶段退学:(1)注意,(2)解码,(3)理解,(4)采取行动,(5)利用反馈取得进步。眼球追踪法用于测量反馈的注意和解码。行为数据记录跟踪学生使用反馈和潜在的进步。实验比较了三种反馈信号条件:教学代理,动画箭头和无信号(控制条件)。研究发现:学生在每个阶段都中途退学,很少有人能通过最后阶段。代理条件在前两个阶段显著减少了对反馈的忽视,这表明最初不倾向于注意和阅读反馈文本的学生可以受到影响而这样做。贡献:本研究提供了一个模型和方法来建立更细粒度的关于学生(非)反馈处理的知识。更多关于学生在哪个阶段辍学以及为什么辍学的知识可以为抵制辍学的方法提供信息,并形成更有成效和富有成效的回应。
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
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Journal of the Learning Sciences (JLS) is one of the two official journals of the International Society of the Learning Sciences ( www.isls.org). JLS provides a multidisciplinary forum for research on education and learning that informs theories of how people learn and the design of learning environments. It publishes research that elucidates processes of learning, and the ways in which technologies, instructional practices, and learning environments can be designed to support learning in different contexts. JLS articles draw on theoretical frameworks from such diverse fields as cognitive science, sociocultural theory, educational psychology, computer science, and anthropology. Submissions are not limited to any particular research method, but must be based on rigorous analyses that present new insights into how people learn and/or how learning can be supported and enhanced. Successful submissions should position their argument within extant literature in the learning sciences. They should reflect the core practices and foci that have defined the learning sciences as a field: privileging design in methodology and pedagogy; emphasizing interdisciplinarity and methodological innovation; grounding research in real-world contexts; answering questions about learning process and mechanism, alongside outcomes; pursuing technological and pedagogical innovation; and maintaining a strong connection between research and practice.
期刊最新文献
Reframing design in education: Proposing a framework to support pre-service teachers in adopting designerly stances The role of individual preparation before collaboration: An exploratory study on students’ computer-supported collaborative argumentation in a primary classroom Toward epistemic justice in socio-scientific decision-making: How youth make sense of lively COVID-19 and vaccines data Learning and constructions of us and them in teachers’ collaborative groups Interdisciplinary learning in the humanities: Knowledge building and identity work
×
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