基于计算机的协作解决问题技能评估:实证研究系统回顾

IF 9.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Educational Research Review Pub Date : 2023-12-30 DOI:10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100591
Huanyou Chai , Tianhui Hu , Li Wu
{"title":"基于计算机的协作解决问题技能评估:实证研究系统回顾","authors":"Huanyou Chai ,&nbsp;Tianhui Hu ,&nbsp;Li Wu","doi":"10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100591","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Given the widespread concern on collaborative problem solving (CPS) skills, there has been an increasing interest in the last few years to explore how to assess them with digital technologies. This study systematically reviewed how CPS skills have been assessed with digital technologies in the literature. A total of 40 articles were reviewed to analyze specific computer-based assessment instruments of CPS skills from four perspectives: research context, theoretical model for assessment, assessment type, and reliability and validity evidence. The results indicate that most tests target a sample of less than 500 junior students. Nine theoretical models are employed for assessing CPS skills, most of which treat these skills as an explicit combination of social and cognitive skills and are applied to a limited range of participants' age levels, collaboration features, and team compositions. A total of 22 tests have been employed and fallen into four types, i.e., the ones with specific predefined messages in human-agent mode, and those with online chat box, videoconferencing, and face-to-face collaboration in human-human mode. Each type of these tests demonstrates great diversities in participants’ age levels, types of CPS task(s), team compositions, types of assessment data, and methods of data recording and scoring. A certain number of tests lack reliability and validity evidence. Our findings are expected to benefit relevant researchers and test developers in terms of providing suggestions for future research which include testing the applicability of theoretical models for assessing CPS skills across a wide range of assessment contexts. In addition, future researchers should improve the development, data processing, and report of those four types of computer-based assessment instruments of CPS skills through different approaches, respectively.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48125,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Computer-based assessment of collaborative problem solving skills: A systematic review of empirical research\",\"authors\":\"Huanyou Chai ,&nbsp;Tianhui Hu ,&nbsp;Li Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100591\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Given the widespread concern on collaborative problem solving (CPS) skills, there has been an increasing interest in the last few years to explore how to assess them with digital technologies. This study systematically reviewed how CPS skills have been assessed with digital technologies in the literature. A total of 40 articles were reviewed to analyze specific computer-based assessment instruments of CPS skills from four perspectives: research context, theoretical model for assessment, assessment type, and reliability and validity evidence. The results indicate that most tests target a sample of less than 500 junior students. Nine theoretical models are employed for assessing CPS skills, most of which treat these skills as an explicit combination of social and cognitive skills and are applied to a limited range of participants' age levels, collaboration features, and team compositions. A total of 22 tests have been employed and fallen into four types, i.e., the ones with specific predefined messages in human-agent mode, and those with online chat box, videoconferencing, and face-to-face collaboration in human-human mode. Each type of these tests demonstrates great diversities in participants’ age levels, types of CPS task(s), team compositions, types of assessment data, and methods of data recording and scoring. A certain number of tests lack reliability and validity evidence. Our findings are expected to benefit relevant researchers and test developers in terms of providing suggestions for future research which include testing the applicability of theoretical models for assessing CPS skills across a wide range of assessment contexts. In addition, future researchers should improve the development, data processing, and report of those four types of computer-based assessment instruments of CPS skills through different approaches, respectively.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48125,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Research Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Research Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X23000842\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Research Review","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X23000842","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: 0

摘要

鉴于协作式问题解决(CPS)技能受到广泛关注,近几年来,人们越来越关注如何利用数字技术对其进行评估。本研究系统回顾了文献中如何利用数字技术评估 CPS 技能。共查阅了 40 篇文章,从研究背景、评估理论模型、评估类型、信度和效度证据四个方面分析了基于计算机的 CPS 技能评估工具。结果表明,大多数测试的目标样本少于 500 名初三学生。采用了九种理论模型来评估 CPS 技能,其中大多数将这些技能视为社会技能和认知技能的明确组合,并适用于参与者的年龄水平、协作特征和团队组成等有限范围。共采用了 22 项测试,分为四种类型,即在人-代理模式下使用特定的预定义信息的测试,以及在人-人模式下使用在线聊天框、视频会议和面对面协作的测试。每种类型的测试在参与者的年龄水平、CPS 任务类型、团队组成、评估数据类型以及数据记录和评分方法等方面都有很大差异。一定数量的测试缺乏可靠性和有效性证据。我们的研究结果可望对相关研究人员和测试开发人员有所裨益,为今后的研究提供建议,包括测试理论模型在各种评估环境中评估 CPS 技能的适用性。此外,未来的研究人员应分别通过不同的方法改进这四类基于计算机的 CPS 技能评估工具的开发、数据处理和报告。
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
Computer-based assessment of collaborative problem solving skills: A systematic review of empirical research

Given the widespread concern on collaborative problem solving (CPS) skills, there has been an increasing interest in the last few years to explore how to assess them with digital technologies. This study systematically reviewed how CPS skills have been assessed with digital technologies in the literature. A total of 40 articles were reviewed to analyze specific computer-based assessment instruments of CPS skills from four perspectives: research context, theoretical model for assessment, assessment type, and reliability and validity evidence. The results indicate that most tests target a sample of less than 500 junior students. Nine theoretical models are employed for assessing CPS skills, most of which treat these skills as an explicit combination of social and cognitive skills and are applied to a limited range of participants' age levels, collaboration features, and team compositions. A total of 22 tests have been employed and fallen into four types, i.e., the ones with specific predefined messages in human-agent mode, and those with online chat box, videoconferencing, and face-to-face collaboration in human-human mode. Each type of these tests demonstrates great diversities in participants’ age levels, types of CPS task(s), team compositions, types of assessment data, and methods of data recording and scoring. A certain number of tests lack reliability and validity evidence. Our findings are expected to benefit relevant researchers and test developers in terms of providing suggestions for future research which include testing the applicability of theoretical models for assessing CPS skills across a wide range of assessment contexts. In addition, future researchers should improve the development, data processing, and report of those four types of computer-based assessment instruments of CPS skills through different approaches, respectively.

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
Educational Research Review
Educational Research Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
19.40
自引率
0.90%
发文量
53
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: Educational Research Review is an international journal catering to researchers and diverse agencies keen on reviewing studies and theoretical papers in education at any level. The journal welcomes high-quality articles that address educational research problems through a review approach, encompassing thematic or methodological reviews and meta-analyses. With an inclusive scope, the journal does not limit itself to any specific age range and invites articles across various settings where learning and education take place, such as schools, corporate training, and both formal and informal educational environments.
期刊最新文献
A meta-analysis of the correlation between teacher self-efficacy and teacher resilience: Concerted growth and contextual variance A systematic review on how educators teach AI in K-12 education Translating neuroscience to early childhood education: A scoping review of neuroscience-based professional learning for early childhood educators What is next in mobile-assisted reading? Insights from a decade of eye tracking research into cognitive processes Teaching for paradigm shifts: Supporting the drivers of radical creativity in management education
×
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