高等教育合作学习评价的构建及其因果有效性探讨

IF 3 3区 心理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Small Group Research Pub Date : 2022-07-08 DOI:10.1177/10464964221095545
H. Meijer, J. Brouwer, R. Hoekstra, J. Strijbos
{"title":"高等教育合作学习评价的构建及其因果有效性探讨","authors":"H. Meijer, J. Brouwer, R. Hoekstra, J. Strijbos","doi":"10.1177/10464964221095545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the advance of collaborative learning in higher education, there is a tension between its assessment and the orientation on students’ individual domain-specific abilities (e.g., knowledge and/or skills) of most higher education curricula. We examined the construct and consequential validity of group assessment, individual assessment, and combined assessment of collaborative learning. Findings showed that the construct and consequential validity of these assessment methods can vary widely within and across cohorts. In view of these findings and considering pragmatic and didactic considerations, combined assessment of collaborative learning might be better suited than group assessment and individual assessment of collaborative learning.","PeriodicalId":47912,"journal":{"name":"Small Group Research","volume":"53 1","pages":"891 - 925"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring Construct and Consequential Validity of Collaborative Learning Assessment in Higher Education\",\"authors\":\"H. Meijer, J. Brouwer, R. Hoekstra, J. Strijbos\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10464964221095545\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Despite the advance of collaborative learning in higher education, there is a tension between its assessment and the orientation on students’ individual domain-specific abilities (e.g., knowledge and/or skills) of most higher education curricula. We examined the construct and consequential validity of group assessment, individual assessment, and combined assessment of collaborative learning. Findings showed that the construct and consequential validity of these assessment methods can vary widely within and across cohorts. In view of these findings and considering pragmatic and didactic considerations, combined assessment of collaborative learning might be better suited than group assessment and individual assessment of collaborative learning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47912,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Small Group Research\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"891 - 925\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Small Group Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964221095545\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Small Group Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964221095545","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

尽管协作学习在高等教育中取得了进步,但它的评估与大多数高等教育课程对学生个人特定领域能力(如知识和/或技能)的定位之间存在紧张关系。我们考察了小组评估、个人评估和联合评估的结构和结果效度。研究结果表明,这些评估方法的结构和相应的有效性可能在队列内部和跨队列中有很大差异。鉴于这些发现,并考虑到实用主义和教学的考虑,联合评估协作学习可能比小组评估和个人评估协作学习更适合。
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
Exploring Construct and Consequential Validity of Collaborative Learning Assessment in Higher Education
Despite the advance of collaborative learning in higher education, there is a tension between its assessment and the orientation on students’ individual domain-specific abilities (e.g., knowledge and/or skills) of most higher education curricula. We examined the construct and consequential validity of group assessment, individual assessment, and combined assessment of collaborative learning. Findings showed that the construct and consequential validity of these assessment methods can vary widely within and across cohorts. In view of these findings and considering pragmatic and didactic considerations, combined assessment of collaborative learning might be better suited than group assessment and individual assessment of collaborative learning.
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
6.70
自引率
5.40%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: Policy: Small Group Research is an international and interdisciplinary journal presenting research, theoretical advancements, and empirically supported applications with respect to all types of small groups. Through advancing the systematic study of small groups, this journal seeks to increase communication among all who are professionally interested in group phenomena.
期刊最新文献
Group Dynamics in the Metaverse: A Conceptual Framework and First Empirical Insights The Science (and Practice) of Teamwork: A Commentary on Forty Years of Progress… Hybrid Teamwork: What We Know and Where We Can Go From Here A Conceptualization of Mood Influences on Group Judgment and Decision Making: The Key Function of Dominant Cognitive Processing Strategies Virtual Teams: Taking Stock and Moving Forward
×
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