教师在日常实践中如何处理基于技术的形成性评估结果?有声思维数据的过程挖掘结果

IF 5.7 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Learning and Instruction Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-27 DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102100
Sarah Bez , Fabian Burkart , Martin J. Tomasik , Samuel Merk
{"title":"教师在日常实践中如何处理基于技术的形成性评估结果?有声思维数据的过程挖掘结果","authors":"Sarah Bez ,&nbsp;Fabian Burkart ,&nbsp;Martin J. Tomasik ,&nbsp;Samuel Merk","doi":"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Technology-based formative assessments are considered promising in terms of reducing teachers’ workload and providing validity advantages but little is known how teachers use the assessment results to inform their instruction in their daily practice.</div></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><div>We explored how teachers process technology-based formative assessment results using think-aloud methodology in an ecologically valid setting.</div></div><div><h3>Sample</h3><div>Forty-eight experienced in-service teachers participated in the study.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We asked the teachers to verbalize their thoughts while they processed students’ formative assessment results as they usually do. Screencasts of the verbalizations and assessment results were recorded. Based on these, trained raters coded the main steps of processing and which specific aspects of the results were noticed based on a deductive-inductive coding scheme. Cluster analyses were applied to explore differences among teachers, and process mining was conducted to explore the main processes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We found four main steps: <em>noticing results</em>, <em>comparing with personal perspective</em>, <em>analyzing errors</em> and <em>constructing instructional implications</em>. Relative durations of these steps vary substantially among teachers. Cluster analyses indicate that processes were differentiated according to the complexity of summarizing and building relationships between single data points. The fitted process model revealed low dependency values in general and indicates that noticing results on its own seemed to be insufficient for constructing instructional implications.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This study generates the hypothesis that analyzing errors and comparing results with the personal perspective are important for teachers for next instructional decisions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48357,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Instruction","volume":"97 ","pages":"Article 102100"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do teachers process technology-based formative assessment results in their daily practice? Results from process mining of think-aloud data\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Bez ,&nbsp;Fabian Burkart ,&nbsp;Martin J. Tomasik ,&nbsp;Samuel Merk\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102100\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Technology-based formative assessments are considered promising in terms of reducing teachers’ workload and providing validity advantages but little is known how teachers use the assessment results to inform their instruction in their daily practice.</div></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><div>We explored how teachers process technology-based formative assessment results using think-aloud methodology in an ecologically valid setting.</div></div><div><h3>Sample</h3><div>Forty-eight experienced in-service teachers participated in the study.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We asked the teachers to verbalize their thoughts while they processed students’ formative assessment results as they usually do. Screencasts of the verbalizations and assessment results were recorded. Based on these, trained raters coded the main steps of processing and which specific aspects of the results were noticed based on a deductive-inductive coding scheme. Cluster analyses were applied to explore differences among teachers, and process mining was conducted to explore the main processes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We found four main steps: <em>noticing results</em>, <em>comparing with personal perspective</em>, <em>analyzing errors</em> and <em>constructing instructional implications</em>. Relative durations of these steps vary substantially among teachers. Cluster analyses indicate that processes were differentiated according to the complexity of summarizing and building relationships between single data points. The fitted process model revealed low dependency values in general and indicates that noticing results on its own seemed to be insufficient for constructing instructional implications.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This study generates the hypothesis that analyzing errors and comparing results with the personal perspective are important for teachers for next instructional decisions.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48357,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Learning and Instruction\",\"volume\":\"97 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102100\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"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/S0959475225000234\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"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/S0959475225000234","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基于技术的形成性评估在减少教师工作量和提供有效性优势方面被认为是有希望的,但很少有人知道教师如何在日常实践中使用评估结果来指导他们的教学。目的:我们探讨了教师如何在生态有效的环境中使用有声思维方法处理基于技术的形成性评估结果。48名经验丰富的在职教师参与了这项研究。方法我们要求教师在处理学生的形成性评估结果时用语言表达他们的想法,就像他们通常做的那样。记录了口头表达和评估结果的视频。在此基础上,训练有素的评分者根据演绎-归纳编码方案对处理的主要步骤和注意到的结果的具体方面进行编码。本研究采用聚类分析探讨教师之间的差异,并采用过程挖掘方法探讨主要过程。结果观察结果、比较个人观点、分析错误、建构教学意义四个主要步骤。这些步骤的相对持续时间因教师而异。聚类分析表明,根据单个数据点之间的汇总和建立关系的复杂性,过程被区分开来。拟合的过程模型总体上显示出较低的依赖值,表明仅注意结果似乎不足以构建教学意义。结论本研究提出一个假设,分析错误并从个人角度比较结果对教师下一步的教学决策很重要。
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
How do teachers process technology-based formative assessment results in their daily practice? Results from process mining of think-aloud data

Background

Technology-based formative assessments are considered promising in terms of reducing teachers’ workload and providing validity advantages but little is known how teachers use the assessment results to inform their instruction in their daily practice.

Aims

We explored how teachers process technology-based formative assessment results using think-aloud methodology in an ecologically valid setting.

Sample

Forty-eight experienced in-service teachers participated in the study.

Methods

We asked the teachers to verbalize their thoughts while they processed students’ formative assessment results as they usually do. Screencasts of the verbalizations and assessment results were recorded. Based on these, trained raters coded the main steps of processing and which specific aspects of the results were noticed based on a deductive-inductive coding scheme. Cluster analyses were applied to explore differences among teachers, and process mining was conducted to explore the main processes.

Results

We found four main steps: noticing results, comparing with personal perspective, analyzing errors and constructing instructional implications. Relative durations of these steps vary substantially among teachers. Cluster analyses indicate that processes were differentiated according to the complexity of summarizing and building relationships between single data points. The fitted process model revealed low dependency values in general and indicates that noticing results on its own seemed to be insufficient for constructing instructional implications.

Conclusions

This study generates the hypothesis that analyzing errors and comparing results with the personal perspective are important for teachers for next instructional decisions.
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
An entropy-based ARAS approach to identifying teachers’ proof schemes Using board games as a protective tool: Effects on cognitive, social, emotional, behavioural outcomes, and learning How teaching shapes motivations to learn across middle school subjects Can we professionally develop teachers’ visual attention? Video-based professional development of early childhood teachers’ in-action noticing during language-stimulating interactions: A mobile eye-tracking study We are stronger together: The impact of dialogic reading with robots on children's mathematical language and numeracy skills
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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