在竞争性程序中使用基于证据的评估标准

IF 0.7 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Psikhologicheskaya Nauka i Obrazovanie-Psychological Science and Education Pub Date : 2023-09-14 DOI:10.17759/pse.2023280303
S.V. Alekhina, Yu.A. Bystrova, E.V. Samsonova, A.Yu. Shemanov
{"title":"在竞争性程序中使用基于证据的评估标准","authors":"S.V. Alekhina, Yu.A. Bystrova, E.V. Samsonova, A.Yu. Shemanov","doi":"10.17759/pse.2023280303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The work presents the results of approbation of the approach to expert evaluation of inclusive practices in educational institutions developed at the Institute for Problems of Inclusive Education of the Moscow State University of Psychology and Education based on the integration of inclusiveness criteria and evidence requirements. The assessment involved 25 federal experts on inclusive education, who evaluated 30 cases in three nominations of inclusive practices submitted to the federal stage of the competition. The assessors scored the applications by completing expert protocols, which were processed to determine the level of inclusivity of the practice (zero, initial, basic, or advanced). Then a reflective discussion was organized on the application by experts of the approach we developed to assessing inclusive practices according to the criteria of inclusiveness and evidence, the results of this discussion were subjected to thematic analysis. The study revealed that the distribution of expert assessments of inclusive practices by levels differs from uniform (p &amp;lt; 0,01), confirming the effectiveness of the criteria as an assessment tool. At the same time, the reproducibility of the results of the expert assessment turned out to be at an acceptable level (83%), taking into account the unreliability of differentiation of the zero and initial levels (sample of repeated measurements: N = 12). The thematic analysis of expert reflection showed the usefulness of evaluation criteria as a tool not only for examination, but also for the development of expert thinking of the experts themselves, as well as the professional development of the contestants. Also, the results of the thematic analysis revealed the need for a broad discussion and further study of the key categories of inclusion (diversity, participation, acceptance, etc.) to operationalize them more accurately as inclusion criteria.</p>","PeriodicalId":55959,"journal":{"name":"Psikhologicheskaya Nauka i Obrazovanie-Psychological Science and Education","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of Evidence-Based Evaluation Criteria for Inclusive Practices in Competitive Procedures\",\"authors\":\"S.V. Alekhina, Yu.A. Bystrova, E.V. Samsonova, A.Yu. Shemanov\",\"doi\":\"10.17759/pse.2023280303\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The work presents the results of approbation of the approach to expert evaluation of inclusive practices in educational institutions developed at the Institute for Problems of Inclusive Education of the Moscow State University of Psychology and Education based on the integration of inclusiveness criteria and evidence requirements. The assessment involved 25 federal experts on inclusive education, who evaluated 30 cases in three nominations of inclusive practices submitted to the federal stage of the competition. The assessors scored the applications by completing expert protocols, which were processed to determine the level of inclusivity of the practice (zero, initial, basic, or advanced). Then a reflective discussion was organized on the application by experts of the approach we developed to assessing inclusive practices according to the criteria of inclusiveness and evidence, the results of this discussion were subjected to thematic analysis. The study revealed that the distribution of expert assessments of inclusive practices by levels differs from uniform (p &amp;lt; 0,01), confirming the effectiveness of the criteria as an assessment tool. At the same time, the reproducibility of the results of the expert assessment turned out to be at an acceptable level (83%), taking into account the unreliability of differentiation of the zero and initial levels (sample of repeated measurements: N = 12). The thematic analysis of expert reflection showed the usefulness of evaluation criteria as a tool not only for examination, but also for the development of expert thinking of the experts themselves, as well as the professional development of the contestants. Also, the results of the thematic analysis revealed the need for a broad discussion and further study of the key categories of inclusion (diversity, participation, acceptance, etc.) to operationalize them more accurately as inclusion criteria.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55959,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psikhologicheskaya Nauka i Obrazovanie-Psychological Science and Education\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psikhologicheskaya Nauka i Obrazovanie-Psychological Science and Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2023280303\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psikhologicheskaya Nauka i Obrazovanie-Psychological Science and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2023280303","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项工作展示了莫斯科国立心理与教育大学全纳教育问题研究所基于包容性标准和证据要求的整合而开发的对教育机构包容性实践的专家评估方法的认可结果。参与评估的有25名全纳教育方面的联邦专家,他们评估了提交给联邦竞赛阶段的三个包容性实践提名中的30个案例。评估人员通过完成专家协议对应用程序进行评分,这些专家协议被处理以确定实践的包容性水平(零、初始、基本或高级)。然后组织了一次反思性讨论,由专家根据包容性和证据的标准来评估我们开发的包容性实践方法的应用,讨论的结果进行了专题分析。研究表明,专家对包容性实践的评估在不同级别的分布不同于统一的(p <(2001),确认标准作为评估工具的有效性。同时,考虑到零和初始水平(重复测量样本:N = 12)的区分不可靠,专家评估结果的再现性处于可接受的水平(83%)。专家反思的专题分析表明,评价标准不仅是一种考试工具,也是专家自身专家思维发展的工具,也是选手专业发展的工具。此外,专题分析的结果表明,需要对包容性的关键类别(多样性、参与、接受等)进行广泛讨论和进一步研究,以便更准确地将其作为纳入标准加以实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Use of Evidence-Based Evaluation Criteria for Inclusive Practices in Competitive Procedures

The work presents the results of approbation of the approach to expert evaluation of inclusive practices in educational institutions developed at the Institute for Problems of Inclusive Education of the Moscow State University of Psychology and Education based on the integration of inclusiveness criteria and evidence requirements. The assessment involved 25 federal experts on inclusive education, who evaluated 30 cases in three nominations of inclusive practices submitted to the federal stage of the competition. The assessors scored the applications by completing expert protocols, which were processed to determine the level of inclusivity of the practice (zero, initial, basic, or advanced). Then a reflective discussion was organized on the application by experts of the approach we developed to assessing inclusive practices according to the criteria of inclusiveness and evidence, the results of this discussion were subjected to thematic analysis. The study revealed that the distribution of expert assessments of inclusive practices by levels differs from uniform (p &lt; 0,01), confirming the effectiveness of the criteria as an assessment tool. At the same time, the reproducibility of the results of the expert assessment turned out to be at an acceptable level (83%), taking into account the unreliability of differentiation of the zero and initial levels (sample of repeated measurements: N = 12). The thematic analysis of expert reflection showed the usefulness of evaluation criteria as a tool not only for examination, but also for the development of expert thinking of the experts themselves, as well as the professional development of the contestants. Also, the results of the thematic analysis revealed the need for a broad discussion and further study of the key categories of inclusion (diversity, participation, acceptance, etc.) to operationalize them more accurately as inclusion criteria.

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
1.80
自引率
37.50%
发文量
31
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Efficiency of Collaborative Computer Problem Solving by the Students of Adolescence and Youth: The Contribution of Social Intelligence Using Process Data of Task Performance in Creative Thinking Assessment Determinants of Blended Teaching-Learning Performance in New Normal Environment: Exploring the Role of Teachers' Technostress as Mediation Formation of Methodological Readiness of Undergraduates of the Psychological and Pedagogical Direction for Mediation in Conditions of Blended Learning Digital Literacy, Cognitive Control and Student Use of Digital Devices
×
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