了解教师对学生学习动机的判断:无法获得的线索的作用

IF 4.7 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Learning and Instruction Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.102029
Jan Beck , Stephan Dutke , Till Utesch
{"title":"了解教师对学生学习动机的判断:无法获得的线索的作用","authors":"Jan Beck ,&nbsp;Stephan Dutke ,&nbsp;Till Utesch","doi":"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.102029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Accurately judging student motivation enables individualized and student-centered instruction. However, teachers in school tend to judge student motivation inaccurately. Low availability of motivation-related cues, like mastery-approach goals and work-avoidance goals, may explain neglecting these cues in judging motivation. Instead, gender and academic achievement might be overly utilized because they are easily available.</div></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><div>To test teachers’ utilization of highly and equally available cues when judging student motivation.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In the first vignette experiment, pre-service and in-service teachers (<em>N</em> = 205) judged eight fictitious students’ motivation sequentially. Teachers received either achievement goal cues (EG1) or additionally gender and academic achievement cues (EG2), creating an information-adequate environment. In Experiment 2, newly recruited pre-service and in-service teachers (<em>N</em> = 213) evaluated the same vignettes in the same groups, but vignettes were presented simultaneously, and cues had to be memorized, resulting in an information-rich environment. Teachers then formed judgments based solely on their memory without further access to the vignettes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>When teachers judged student motivation sequentially, they strongly used mastery-approach goals and work-avoidance goals—regardless of whether other cues were available. In memory-based judgments, teachers primarily used gender and academic achievement.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Results demonstrate that in information-rich environments where cues have to be memorized, teachers tend to overlook motivation-relevant cues. Instead, they focus more on cues that do not inherently indicate motivation. These findings suggest that teachers could benefit from assessment environments, like formative assessment, that allow for the direct processing of available cues to better judge student motivation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48357,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Instruction","volume":"95 ","pages":"Article 102029"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding teacher judgments of student motivation: The role of (un-)available cues\",\"authors\":\"Jan Beck ,&nbsp;Stephan Dutke ,&nbsp;Till Utesch\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.102029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Accurately judging student motivation enables individualized and student-centered instruction. However, teachers in school tend to judge student motivation inaccurately. Low availability of motivation-related cues, like mastery-approach goals and work-avoidance goals, may explain neglecting these cues in judging motivation. Instead, gender and academic achievement might be overly utilized because they are easily available.</div></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><div>To test teachers’ utilization of highly and equally available cues when judging student motivation.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In the first vignette experiment, pre-service and in-service teachers (<em>N</em> = 205) judged eight fictitious students’ motivation sequentially. Teachers received either achievement goal cues (EG1) or additionally gender and academic achievement cues (EG2), creating an information-adequate environment. In Experiment 2, newly recruited pre-service and in-service teachers (<em>N</em> = 213) evaluated the same vignettes in the same groups, but vignettes were presented simultaneously, and cues had to be memorized, resulting in an information-rich environment. Teachers then formed judgments based solely on their memory without further access to the vignettes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>When teachers judged student motivation sequentially, they strongly used mastery-approach goals and work-avoidance goals—regardless of whether other cues were available. In memory-based judgments, teachers primarily used gender and academic achievement.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Results demonstrate that in information-rich environments where cues have to be memorized, teachers tend to overlook motivation-relevant cues. Instead, they focus more on cues that do not inherently indicate motivation. These findings suggest that teachers could benefit from assessment environments, like formative assessment, that allow for the direct processing of available cues to better judge student motivation.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48357,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Learning and Instruction\",\"volume\":\"95 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102029\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Learning and Instruction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475224001567\",\"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":"Learning and Instruction","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475224001567","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

背景准确判断学生的学习动机有助于开展因材施教和以学生为中心的教学。然而,学校中的教师往往会错误地判断学生的学习动机。与学习动机相关的线索,如掌握目标和工作回避目标的可用性较低,这可能是在判断学习动机时忽视这些线索的原因。方法在第一个小实验中,职前和在职教师(N = 205)按顺序对八个虚构学生的学习动机进行判断。教师们要么收到成就目标线索(EG1),要么收到额外的性别和学业成绩线索(EG2),从而创造了一个信息充分的环境。在实验 2 中,新招聘的职前和在职教师(N = 213)在相同的小组中对相同的小故事进行了评价,但小故事是同时呈现的,而且必须记住提示信息,从而创造了一个信息丰富的环境。结果当教师按顺序对学生的学习动机进行判断时,无论是否有其他线索,他们都强烈地使用了掌握目标和避免工作目标。结论结果表明,在信息丰富、需要记忆线索的环境中,教师往往会忽视与动机相关的线索。相反,他们更关注那些本质上并不表示动机的线索。这些研究结果表明,教师可以从形成性评价等评价环境中获益,这些评价环境允许教师直接处理可用线索,从而更好地判断学生的学习动机。
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
Understanding teacher judgments of student motivation: The role of (un-)available cues

Background

Accurately judging student motivation enables individualized and student-centered instruction. However, teachers in school tend to judge student motivation inaccurately. Low availability of motivation-related cues, like mastery-approach goals and work-avoidance goals, may explain neglecting these cues in judging motivation. Instead, gender and academic achievement might be overly utilized because they are easily available.

Aim

To test teachers’ utilization of highly and equally available cues when judging student motivation.

Methods

In the first vignette experiment, pre-service and in-service teachers (N = 205) judged eight fictitious students’ motivation sequentially. Teachers received either achievement goal cues (EG1) or additionally gender and academic achievement cues (EG2), creating an information-adequate environment. In Experiment 2, newly recruited pre-service and in-service teachers (N = 213) evaluated the same vignettes in the same groups, but vignettes were presented simultaneously, and cues had to be memorized, resulting in an information-rich environment. Teachers then formed judgments based solely on their memory without further access to the vignettes.

Results

When teachers judged student motivation sequentially, they strongly used mastery-approach goals and work-avoidance goals—regardless of whether other cues were available. In memory-based judgments, teachers primarily used gender and academic achievement.

Conclusions

Results demonstrate that in information-rich environments where cues have to be memorized, teachers tend to overlook motivation-relevant cues. Instead, they focus more on cues that do not inherently indicate motivation. These findings suggest that teachers could benefit from assessment environments, like formative assessment, that allow for the direct processing of available cues to better judge student motivation.
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
11.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: As an international, multi-disciplinary, peer-refereed journal, Learning and Instruction provides a platform for the publication of the most advanced scientific research in the areas of learning, development, instruction and teaching. The journal welcomes original empirical investigations. The papers may represent a variety of theoretical perspectives and different methodological approaches. They may refer to any age level, from infants to adults and to a diversity of learning and instructional settings, from laboratory experiments to field studies. The major criteria in the review and the selection process concern the significance of the contribution to the area of learning and instruction, and the rigor of the study.
期刊最新文献
Competitive and non-competitive school climate and students’ well-being Comparison effects on self- and external ratings: Testing the generalizability of the 2I/E model to parents and teachers of academic track school students Testing the CONIC model: The interplay of conscientiousness and interest in predicting academic effort Metacognitive scaffolding for digital reading and mind-wandering in adults with and without ADHD Retrieval supports word learning in children with Down syndrome
×
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