不同类型的反馈对职前教师微格教学实践和认知的影响

IF 4.8 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Education and Information Technologies Pub Date : 2024-09-13 DOI:10.1007/s10639-024-13024-z
Mengke Wang, Taotao Long, Na Li, Yawen Shi, Zengzhao Chen
{"title":"不同类型的反馈对职前教师微格教学实践和认知的影响","authors":"Mengke Wang, Taotao Long, Na Li, Yawen Shi, Zengzhao Chen","doi":"10.1007/s10639-024-13024-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Feedback plays an indispensable role in pre-service teachers’ microteaching practice. It provides essential information about their microteaching performance, which is of great significance in their reflection and improvement. As AI and teaching analytics advance, feedback is no longer exclusively human-generated. AI technologies are increasingly capable of delivering feedback on microteaching performance. Yet, the effects of differing feedback types on the microteaching practices of pre-service teachers are not well documented. This study examines the impact of three types of feedback—observation-based, teaching analytics-based, and combined (a combination of both)—on pre-service teachers’ microteaching performance, scope of reflection, perceived usefulness, and satisfaction through an experimental research design. Sixty-five pre-service teachers voluntarily participated and were randomly assigned to three groups: observation-based feedback (<i>N</i> = 21), teaching analytics-based feedback (<i>N</i> = 23), and combined feedback (<i>N</i> = 21). The findings indicate that combined feedback was most effective in enhancing pre-service teachers’ scope of teaching reflection, perceived usefulness of feedback, and satisfaction, but not on microteaching performance. However, when only teaching analytics-based feedback was provided, pre-service teachers perceived it as least useful and were least satisfied. The study discusses the implications of different types of feedback in teacher education.</p>","PeriodicalId":51494,"journal":{"name":"Education and Information Technologies","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of different types of feedback on pre-service teachers’ microteaching practice and perceptions\",\"authors\":\"Mengke Wang, Taotao Long, Na Li, Yawen Shi, Zengzhao Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10639-024-13024-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Feedback plays an indispensable role in pre-service teachers’ microteaching practice. It provides essential information about their microteaching performance, which is of great significance in their reflection and improvement. As AI and teaching analytics advance, feedback is no longer exclusively human-generated. AI technologies are increasingly capable of delivering feedback on microteaching performance. Yet, the effects of differing feedback types on the microteaching practices of pre-service teachers are not well documented. This study examines the impact of three types of feedback—observation-based, teaching analytics-based, and combined (a combination of both)—on pre-service teachers’ microteaching performance, scope of reflection, perceived usefulness, and satisfaction through an experimental research design. Sixty-five pre-service teachers voluntarily participated and were randomly assigned to three groups: observation-based feedback (<i>N</i> = 21), teaching analytics-based feedback (<i>N</i> = 23), and combined feedback (<i>N</i> = 21). The findings indicate that combined feedback was most effective in enhancing pre-service teachers’ scope of teaching reflection, perceived usefulness of feedback, and satisfaction, but not on microteaching performance. However, when only teaching analytics-based feedback was provided, pre-service teachers perceived it as least useful and were least satisfied. The study discusses the implications of different types of feedback in teacher education.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51494,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Education and Information Technologies\",\"volume\":\"50 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Education and Information Technologies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13024-z\",\"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":"Education and Information Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13024-z","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

反馈在职前教师的微格教学实践中发挥着不可或缺的作用。它提供了教师微课表现的基本信息,对教师的反思和改进具有重要意义。随着人工智能和教学分析技术的发展,反馈不再完全由人工生成。人工智能技术越来越有能力提供微课表现反馈。然而,不同类型的反馈对职前教师微课教学实践的影响并没有很好的记录。本研究通过实验研究设计,考察了三种反馈类型--基于观察的反馈、基于教学分析的反馈和综合反馈(两者的结合)--对职前教师微课教学表现、反思范围、感知有用性和满意度的影响。65 名职前教师自愿参加,并被随机分配到三组:基于观察的反馈(21 人)、基于教学分析的反馈(23 人)和综合反馈(21 人)。研究结果表明,综合反馈对提高职前教师的教学反思范围、反馈的有用性和满意度最有效,但对微格教学的绩效没有影响。然而,当只提供基于教学分析的反馈时,职前教师认为其有用性最低,满意度最低。本研究探讨了不同类型的反馈对教师教育的影响。
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
The impact of different types of feedback on pre-service teachers’ microteaching practice and perceptions

Feedback plays an indispensable role in pre-service teachers’ microteaching practice. It provides essential information about their microteaching performance, which is of great significance in their reflection and improvement. As AI and teaching analytics advance, feedback is no longer exclusively human-generated. AI technologies are increasingly capable of delivering feedback on microteaching performance. Yet, the effects of differing feedback types on the microteaching practices of pre-service teachers are not well documented. This study examines the impact of three types of feedback—observation-based, teaching analytics-based, and combined (a combination of both)—on pre-service teachers’ microteaching performance, scope of reflection, perceived usefulness, and satisfaction through an experimental research design. Sixty-five pre-service teachers voluntarily participated and were randomly assigned to three groups: observation-based feedback (N = 21), teaching analytics-based feedback (N = 23), and combined feedback (N = 21). The findings indicate that combined feedback was most effective in enhancing pre-service teachers’ scope of teaching reflection, perceived usefulness of feedback, and satisfaction, but not on microteaching performance. However, when only teaching analytics-based feedback was provided, pre-service teachers perceived it as least useful and were least satisfied. The study discusses the implications of different types of feedback in teacher education.

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
Education and Information Technologies
Education and Information Technologies EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
12.70%
发文量
610
期刊介绍: The Journal of Education and Information Technologies (EAIT) is a platform for the range of debates and issues in the field of Computing Education as well as the many uses of information and communication technology (ICT) across many educational subjects and sectors. It probes the use of computing to improve education and learning in a variety of settings, platforms and environments. The journal aims to provide perspectives at all levels, from the micro level of specific pedagogical approaches in Computing Education and applications or instances of use in classrooms, to macro concerns of national policies and major projects; from pre-school classes to adults in tertiary institutions; from teachers and administrators to researchers and designers; from institutions to online and lifelong learning. The journal is embedded in the research and practice of professionals within the contemporary global context and its breadth and scope encourage debate on fundamental issues at all levels and from different research paradigms and learning theories. The journal does not proselytize on behalf of the technologies (whether they be mobile, desktop, interactive, virtual, games-based or learning management systems) but rather provokes debate on all the complex relationships within and between computing and education, whether they are in informal or formal settings. It probes state of the art technologies in Computing Education and it also considers the design and evaluation of digital educational artefacts.  The journal aims to maintain and expand its international standing by careful selection on merit of the papers submitted, thus providing a credible ongoing forum for debate and scholarly discourse. Special Issues are occasionally published to cover particular issues in depth. EAIT invites readers to submit papers that draw inferences, probe theory and create new knowledge that informs practice, policy and scholarship. Readers are also invited to comment and reflect upon the argument and opinions published. EAIT is the official journal of the Technical Committee on Education of the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) in partnership with UNESCO.
期刊最新文献
Development of a virtual reality creative enhancement system utilizing haptic vibration feedback via electroencephalography Is ChatGPT like a nine-year-old child in theory of mind? Evidence from Chinese writing Analysing factors influencing undergraduates’ adoption of intelligent physical education systems using an expanded TAM The importance of aligning instructor age with learning content in designing instructional videos for older adults Evaluating classroom response systems in engineering education: Which metrics better reflect student performance?
×
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