教学体验问卷(ETLQ)评价优质学习的效度证据:系统的批判性文献综述

IF 2.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Studies in Educational Evaluation Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.stueduc.2023.101283
Lotte O’Neill , Henrik Hein Lauridsen , Lasse Østengaard , Ane Qvortrup
{"title":"教学体验问卷(ETLQ)评价优质学习的效度证据:系统的批判性文献综述","authors":"Lotte O’Neill ,&nbsp;Henrik Hein Lauridsen ,&nbsp;Lasse Østengaard ,&nbsp;Ane Qvortrup","doi":"10.1016/j.stueduc.2023.101283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The use of the Experiences of Teaching &amp; Learning Questionnaire (ETLQ) for the evaluation of learning quality in higher education has been expanding during the last decade, thus a review of the instrument’s validity evidence is warranted. The design of the study was a systematic critical literature review. We evaluated the strength of the validity evidence of 17 included studies with a quality appraisal framework reflecting current standards for educational testing. The evidence supporting the central validity assumptions of the ETLQ scales is currently weak to moderate and incomplete. Thus, caution against the uncritical use of ETQL scores for high-stakes educational decisions is warranted. The appraisal framework used was useful for creating an overview of the evidence. However, attention to more general aspects of study quality, and consensus deliberations with three to four raters was also important for sufficiently reliable appraisal of the evidence.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47539,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Educational Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validity evidence for the Experiences of Teaching and Learning Questionnaire (ETLQ) in evaluations of quality learning: A systematic critical literature review\",\"authors\":\"Lotte O’Neill ,&nbsp;Henrik Hein Lauridsen ,&nbsp;Lasse Østengaard ,&nbsp;Ane Qvortrup\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.stueduc.2023.101283\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The use of the Experiences of Teaching &amp; Learning Questionnaire (ETLQ) for the evaluation of learning quality in higher education has been expanding during the last decade, thus a review of the instrument’s validity evidence is warranted. The design of the study was a systematic critical literature review. We evaluated the strength of the validity evidence of 17 included studies with a quality appraisal framework reflecting current standards for educational testing. The evidence supporting the central validity assumptions of the ETLQ scales is currently weak to moderate and incomplete. Thus, caution against the uncritical use of ETQL scores for high-stakes educational decisions is warranted. The appraisal framework used was useful for creating an overview of the evidence. However, attention to more general aspects of study quality, and consensus deliberations with three to four raters was also important for sufficiently reliable appraisal of the evidence.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47539,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Educational Evaluation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Educational Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X23000494\",\"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":"Studies in Educational Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X23000494","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

教学经验的运用;在过去的十年里,用于评估高等教育学习质量的学习问卷(ETLQ)一直在扩大,因此有必要对该工具的有效性证据进行审查。这项研究的设计是一项系统的批判性文献综述。我们用反映当前教育测试标准的质量评估框架评估了17项纳入研究的有效性证据的强度。支持ETLQ量表的中心有效性假设的证据目前是弱到中等和不完整的。因此,对于在高风险教育决策中不加批判地使用ETQL分数的行为,应予以谨慎。所使用的评估框架有助于对证据进行概述。然而,对研究质量的更普遍方面的关注,以及与三到四名评分者的协商一致,对于充分可靠地评估证据也很重要。
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
Validity evidence for the Experiences of Teaching and Learning Questionnaire (ETLQ) in evaluations of quality learning: A systematic critical literature review

The use of the Experiences of Teaching & Learning Questionnaire (ETLQ) for the evaluation of learning quality in higher education has been expanding during the last decade, thus a review of the instrument’s validity evidence is warranted. The design of the study was a systematic critical literature review. We evaluated the strength of the validity evidence of 17 included studies with a quality appraisal framework reflecting current standards for educational testing. The evidence supporting the central validity assumptions of the ETLQ scales is currently weak to moderate and incomplete. Thus, caution against the uncritical use of ETQL scores for high-stakes educational decisions is warranted. The appraisal framework used was useful for creating an overview of the evidence. However, attention to more general aspects of study quality, and consensus deliberations with three to four raters was also important for sufficiently reliable appraisal of the evidence.

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
6.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
90
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: Studies in Educational Evaluation publishes original reports of evaluation studies. Four types of articles are published by the journal: (a) Empirical evaluation studies representing evaluation practice in educational systems around the world; (b) Theoretical reflections and empirical studies related to issues involved in the evaluation of educational programs, educational institutions, educational personnel and student assessment; (c) Articles summarizing the state-of-the-art concerning specific topics in evaluation in general or in a particular country or group of countries; (d) Book reviews and brief abstracts of evaluation studies.
期刊最新文献
Hitting the mark? A user perspective on the relevance and irrelevance of school performance indicators Predicting the Mathematics Literacy of Resilient Students from High‐performing Economies: A Machine Learning Approach Exploring factors influencing teacher self-efficacy in implementing inclusive education in Cambodia: A two-level hierarchical linear model What value do standardized observation systems add to summative teacher evaluation systems? Investigating anonymity in formative and summative peer assessment: Effects on university students’ social-affective factors, perceptions and preference
×
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