基于代码的评分和反馈方法能减少教师的工作量吗?对FLASH标记干预的评估

IF 2.3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Oxford Review of Education Pub Date : 2023-10-10 DOI:10.1080/03054985.2023.2258779
Rebecca Morris, Stephen Gorard, Beng Huat See, Nadia Siddiqui
{"title":"基于代码的评分和反馈方法能减少教师的工作量吗?对FLASH标记干预的评估","authors":"Rebecca Morris, Stephen Gorard, Beng Huat See, Nadia Siddiqui","doi":"10.1080/03054985.2023.2258779","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Teacher workload is an important policy concern in many education systems around the world, often considered a contributory factor in teacher attrition. One aspect of workload that could be addressed is reducing the amount of written marking and feedback that teachers do. This article reports on the results of an evaluation of FLASH Marking, an intervention aimed at reducing teachers’ marking workload. FLASH Marking is a code-based feedback approach involving peer- and self-assessment, reducing the need to use alphanumeric grading while promoting the use of students’ metacognitive skills. The study involved a single cohort of 18,500 Key Stage 4 pupils (aged 14/15 at the start of the trial) and their English teachers (n = 990) in 103 secondary schools in England. The impact of the intervention was estimated as the difference in before and after measures of teacher workload, comparing teachers in 52 intervention schools and those in 51 control schools. The results suggest that the intervention had the effect of lessening teachers’ workload by reducing their working hours (effect size 0.16), including hours spent on marking and feedback (0.17). The intervention was largely implemented as designed and teachers were generally positive about the potential impact of FLASH on pupils’ learning outcomes.","PeriodicalId":47910,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Review of Education","volume":"63 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can a code-based approach to marking and feedback reduce teachers’ workload? An evaluation of the FLASH marking intervention\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca Morris, Stephen Gorard, Beng Huat See, Nadia Siddiqui\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03054985.2023.2258779\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Teacher workload is an important policy concern in many education systems around the world, often considered a contributory factor in teacher attrition. One aspect of workload that could be addressed is reducing the amount of written marking and feedback that teachers do. This article reports on the results of an evaluation of FLASH Marking, an intervention aimed at reducing teachers’ marking workload. FLASH Marking is a code-based feedback approach involving peer- and self-assessment, reducing the need to use alphanumeric grading while promoting the use of students’ metacognitive skills. The study involved a single cohort of 18,500 Key Stage 4 pupils (aged 14/15 at the start of the trial) and their English teachers (n = 990) in 103 secondary schools in England. The impact of the intervention was estimated as the difference in before and after measures of teacher workload, comparing teachers in 52 intervention schools and those in 51 control schools. The results suggest that the intervention had the effect of lessening teachers’ workload by reducing their working hours (effect size 0.16), including hours spent on marking and feedback (0.17). The intervention was largely implemented as designed and teachers were generally positive about the potential impact of FLASH on pupils’ learning outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47910,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford Review of Education\",\"volume\":\"63 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford Review of Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2023.2258779\",\"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":"Oxford Review of Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2023.2258779","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

教师工作量是世界各地许多教育系统的一个重要政策问题,通常被认为是教师流失的一个促成因素。可以解决的工作量的一个方面是减少教师的书面评分和反馈的数量。本文报告了FLASH阅卷的评估结果,这是一种旨在减少教师阅卷工作量的干预措施。FLASH Marking是一种基于代码的反馈方法,涉及同伴和自我评估,减少了使用字母数字评分的需要,同时促进了学生元认知技能的使用。这项研究涉及英国103所中学的18500名关键阶段四年级学生(试验开始时年龄为14/15岁)和他们的英语老师(n = 990)。干预的影响是通过比较52所干预学校和51所对照学校的教师在教师工作量测量前后的差异来估计的。结果表明,干预通过减少教师的工作时间(效应值为0.16)来减轻教师的工作量,其中包括用于评分和反馈的时间(效应值为0.17)。干预措施在很大程度上按照设计实施,教师们普遍对FLASH对学生学习成果的潜在影响持积极态度。
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
Can a code-based approach to marking and feedback reduce teachers’ workload? An evaluation of the FLASH marking intervention
Teacher workload is an important policy concern in many education systems around the world, often considered a contributory factor in teacher attrition. One aspect of workload that could be addressed is reducing the amount of written marking and feedback that teachers do. This article reports on the results of an evaluation of FLASH Marking, an intervention aimed at reducing teachers’ marking workload. FLASH Marking is a code-based feedback approach involving peer- and self-assessment, reducing the need to use alphanumeric grading while promoting the use of students’ metacognitive skills. The study involved a single cohort of 18,500 Key Stage 4 pupils (aged 14/15 at the start of the trial) and their English teachers (n = 990) in 103 secondary schools in England. The impact of the intervention was estimated as the difference in before and after measures of teacher workload, comparing teachers in 52 intervention schools and those in 51 control schools. The results suggest that the intervention had the effect of lessening teachers’ workload by reducing their working hours (effect size 0.16), including hours spent on marking and feedback (0.17). The intervention was largely implemented as designed and teachers were generally positive about the potential impact of FLASH on pupils’ learning outcomes.
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
Oxford Review of Education
Oxford Review of Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The Oxford Review of Education is a well established journal with an extensive international readership. It is committed to deploying the resources of a wide range of academic disciplines in the service of educational scholarship, and the Editors welcome articles reporting significant new research as well as contributions of a more analytic or reflective nature. The membership of the editorial board reflects these emphases, which have remained characteristic of the Review since its foundation. The Review seeks to preserve the highest standards of professional scholarship in education, while also seeking to publish articles which will be of interest and utility to a wider public, including policy makers.
期刊最新文献
Colour-evasive racial ideologies underpinning the hidden curriculum of a majority-minority occupational therapy school in London, England: an analysis of minoritised undergraduate students’ experiences Environment in the views of preschool children: an investigation of children’s drawings and narratives in Turkey Understanding the salary gap between academic faculty and top administrators: a New Public Management perspective Theory-informed beliefs in early childhood education: contradictions in child development theories and models of play The pronunciation of students’ names in higher education: identity work by academics and professional services staff
×
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