诊断性和非诊断性线索对教师判断学生课文理解准确性的影响

IF 3.9 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Metacognition and Learning Pub Date : 2024-04-05 DOI:10.1007/s11409-024-09383-0
Janneke van de Pol, Eleanor Rowan, Eva Janssen, Tamara van Gog
{"title":"诊断性和非诊断性线索对教师判断学生课文理解准确性的影响","authors":"Janneke van de Pol, Eleanor Rowan, Eva Janssen, Tamara van Gog","doi":"10.1007/s11409-024-09383-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Accurately judging students’ comprehension is a key professional competence for teachers. It is crucial for adapting instruction to students’ needs and thereby promoting student learning. According to the cue-utilization framework, the accuracy of teachers’ judgments depends on how predictive (or diagnostic) the information (or cues) that teachers use to make judgments is of student performance. It is, however, unclear from prior studies if merely providing access to diagnostic cues aids accuracy, or whether this only helps if non-diagnostic cues are unavailable or ignored. Therefore, we investigated, using a within-subjects experimental design, the accuracy of secondary school teachers’ (<i>N</i> = 33) judgments of anonymous students’ text comprehension under four cue availability conditions: 1) non-diagnostic cues only; 2) diagnostic cues only; 3) a mix of diagnostic and non-diagnostic cues; and, 4) after an intervention informing them of the diagnosticity of cues, again a mix of diagnostic and non-diagnostic cues. Access to diagnostic cues enhanced teachers’ judgment accuracy, while access to non-diagnostic cues hindered it. While teachers’ judgment accuracy was not enhanced by the intervention (presumably because it was already relatively high), their diagnostic cue utilization increased, and non-diagnostic cue utilization decreased. In addition, teachers’ calibration increased after the intervention: They knew better when their judgments were (in)accurate. Furthermore, teachers were quite aware that diagnostic cues are diagnostic, but their awareness that non-diagnostic cues (especially students’ interest) are not, could be improved. These results could be useful in designing effective interventions to further foster teachers’ judgment accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":47385,"journal":{"name":"Metacognition and Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of availability of diagnostic and non-diagnostic cues on the accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ text comprehension\",\"authors\":\"Janneke van de Pol, Eleanor Rowan, Eva Janssen, Tamara van Gog\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11409-024-09383-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Accurately judging students’ comprehension is a key professional competence for teachers. It is crucial for adapting instruction to students’ needs and thereby promoting student learning. According to the cue-utilization framework, the accuracy of teachers’ judgments depends on how predictive (or diagnostic) the information (or cues) that teachers use to make judgments is of student performance. It is, however, unclear from prior studies if merely providing access to diagnostic cues aids accuracy, or whether this only helps if non-diagnostic cues are unavailable or ignored. Therefore, we investigated, using a within-subjects experimental design, the accuracy of secondary school teachers’ (<i>N</i> = 33) judgments of anonymous students’ text comprehension under four cue availability conditions: 1) non-diagnostic cues only; 2) diagnostic cues only; 3) a mix of diagnostic and non-diagnostic cues; and, 4) after an intervention informing them of the diagnosticity of cues, again a mix of diagnostic and non-diagnostic cues. Access to diagnostic cues enhanced teachers’ judgment accuracy, while access to non-diagnostic cues hindered it. While teachers’ judgment accuracy was not enhanced by the intervention (presumably because it was already relatively high), their diagnostic cue utilization increased, and non-diagnostic cue utilization decreased. In addition, teachers’ calibration increased after the intervention: They knew better when their judgments were (in)accurate. Furthermore, teachers were quite aware that diagnostic cues are diagnostic, but their awareness that non-diagnostic cues (especially students’ interest) are not, could be improved. These results could be useful in designing effective interventions to further foster teachers’ judgment accuracy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47385,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Metacognition and Learning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Metacognition and Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09383-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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":"Metacognition and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09383-0","RegionNum":2,"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

准确判断学生的理解能力是教师的一项重要专业能力。这对于因材施教,从而促进学生的学习至关重要。根据线索利用框架,教师判断的准确性取决于教师用来做出判断的信息(或线索)对学生成绩的预测性(或诊断性)。然而,以往的研究还不清楚,仅仅提供诊断性线索是否有助于提高判断的准确性,还是只有在非诊断性线索不可用或被忽视的情况下才有助于提高判断的准确性。因此,我们采用主体内实验设计,研究了中学教师(33 人)在四种线索可用性条件下对匿名学生的文本理解能力做出判断的准确性:1)只有非诊断性线索;2)只有诊断性线索;3)诊断性和非诊断性线索混合;4)在告知他们线索诊断性的干预之后,同样是诊断性和非诊断性线索混合。获得诊断性线索提高了教师判断的准确性,而获得非诊断性线索则降低了教师判断的准确性。虽然教师的判断准确率并没有因为干预而提高(可能是因为他们的判断准确率已经相对较高),但他们对诊断性线索的利用率提高了,而对非诊断性线索的利用率降低了。此外,干预后教师的校准能力也有所提高:他们更清楚自己的判断何时(不)准确。此外,教师们很清楚诊断线索具有诊断作用,但他们对非诊断线索(尤其是学生的兴趣)不具有诊断作用的认识还有待提高。这些结果有助于设计有效的干预措施,进一步提高教师判断的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Effects of availability of diagnostic and non-diagnostic cues on the accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ text comprehension

Accurately judging students’ comprehension is a key professional competence for teachers. It is crucial for adapting instruction to students’ needs and thereby promoting student learning. According to the cue-utilization framework, the accuracy of teachers’ judgments depends on how predictive (or diagnostic) the information (or cues) that teachers use to make judgments is of student performance. It is, however, unclear from prior studies if merely providing access to diagnostic cues aids accuracy, or whether this only helps if non-diagnostic cues are unavailable or ignored. Therefore, we investigated, using a within-subjects experimental design, the accuracy of secondary school teachers’ (N = 33) judgments of anonymous students’ text comprehension under four cue availability conditions: 1) non-diagnostic cues only; 2) diagnostic cues only; 3) a mix of diagnostic and non-diagnostic cues; and, 4) after an intervention informing them of the diagnosticity of cues, again a mix of diagnostic and non-diagnostic cues. Access to diagnostic cues enhanced teachers’ judgment accuracy, while access to non-diagnostic cues hindered it. While teachers’ judgment accuracy was not enhanced by the intervention (presumably because it was already relatively high), their diagnostic cue utilization increased, and non-diagnostic cue utilization decreased. In addition, teachers’ calibration increased after the intervention: They knew better when their judgments were (in)accurate. Furthermore, teachers were quite aware that diagnostic cues are diagnostic, but their awareness that non-diagnostic cues (especially students’ interest) are not, could be improved. These results could be useful in designing effective interventions to further foster teachers’ judgment accuracy.

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
6.20
自引率
15.20%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The journal "Metacognition and Learning" addresses various components of metacognition, such as metacognitive awareness, experiences, knowledge, and executive skills. Both general metacognition as well as domain-specific metacognitions in various task domains (mathematics, physics, reading, writing etc.) are considered. Papers may address fundamental theoretical issues, measurement issues regarding both quantitative and qualitative methods, as well as empirical studies about individual differences in metacognition, relations with other learner characteristics and learning strategies, developmental issues, the training of metacognition components in learning, and the teacher’s role in metacognition training. Studies highlighting the role of metacognition in self- or co-regulated learning as well as its relations with motivation and affect are also welcomed. Submitted papers are judged on theoretical relevance, methodological thoroughness, and appeal to an international audience. The journal aims for a high academic standard with relevance to the field of educational practices. One restriction is that papers should pertain to the role of metacognition in learning situations. Self-regulation in clinical settings, such as coping with phobia or anxiety outside learning situations, is beyond the scope of the journal.
期刊最新文献
Knowledge exploration among students: role of feedback, feeling of confidence, and academic motivation Self-regulated strategy development’s effectiveness: underlying cognitive and metacognitive mechanisms Development of metacognitive monitoring and control skills in elementary school: a latent profile approach Metacognitive reflections on essentialism during the learning of the relationship between biology and the human race On the confidence-accuracy relationship in memory: inferential, direct access, or indirect access?
×
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