许多课程1:评估即时反馈与延迟反馈在许多大学课程中的推广效果

IF 15.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science Pub Date : 2021-07-01 DOI:10.1177/25152459211027575
Emily R. Fyfe, J. D. Leeuw, Paulo F. Carvalho, Robert L. Goldstone, Janelle Sherman, D. Admiraal, Laura K. Alford, Alison Bonner, C. Brassil, Christopher A. Brooks, Tracey Carbonetto, Sau Hou Chang, Laura Cruz, Melina T. Czymoniewicz-Klippel, F. Daniel, M. Driessen, Noel Habashy, Carrie Hanson-Bradley, E. Hirt, Virginia Hojas Carbonell, Daniel K. Jackson, Shay Jones, Jennifer L. Keagy, Brandi Keith, Sarah J. Malmquist, B. McQuarrie, K. Metzger, Maung Min, S. Patil, Ryan S. Patrick, Etienne Pelaprat, Maureen L. Petrunich-Rutherford, Meghan R. Porter, Kristina K. Prescott, Cathrine Reck, Terri Renner, E. Robbins, Adam R. Smith, P. Stuczynski, J. Thompson, N. Tsotakos, J. Turk, Kyle Unruh, Jennifer Webb, S. Whitehead, E. Wisniewski, Ke Anne Zhang, Benjamin A. Motz
{"title":"许多课程1:评估即时反馈与延迟反馈在许多大学课程中的推广效果","authors":"Emily R. Fyfe, J. D. Leeuw, Paulo F. Carvalho, Robert L. Goldstone, Janelle Sherman, D. Admiraal, Laura K. Alford, Alison Bonner, C. Brassil, Christopher A. Brooks, Tracey Carbonetto, Sau Hou Chang, Laura Cruz, Melina T. Czymoniewicz-Klippel, F. Daniel, M. Driessen, Noel Habashy, Carrie Hanson-Bradley, E. Hirt, Virginia Hojas Carbonell, Daniel K. Jackson, Shay Jones, Jennifer L. Keagy, Brandi Keith, Sarah J. Malmquist, B. McQuarrie, K. Metzger, Maung Min, S. Patil, Ryan S. Patrick, Etienne Pelaprat, Maureen L. Petrunich-Rutherford, Meghan R. Porter, Kristina K. Prescott, Cathrine Reck, Terri Renner, E. Robbins, Adam R. Smith, P. Stuczynski, J. Thompson, N. Tsotakos, J. Turk, Kyle Unruh, Jennifer Webb, S. Whitehead, E. Wisniewski, Ke Anne Zhang, Benjamin A. Motz","doi":"10.1177/25152459211027575","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Psychology researchers have long attempted to identify educational practices that improve student learning. However, experimental research on these practices is often conducted in laboratory contexts or in a single course, which threatens the external validity of the results. In this article, we establish an experimental paradigm for evaluating the benefits of recommended practices across a variety of authentic educational contexts—a model we call ManyClasses. The core feature is that researchers examine the same research question and measure the same experimental effect across many classes spanning a range of topics, institutions, teacher implementations, and student populations. We report the first ManyClasses study, in which we examined how the timing of feedback on class assignments, either immediate or delayed by a few days, affected subsequent performance on class assessments. Across 38 classes, the overall estimate for the effect of feedback timing was 0.002 (95% highest density interval = [−0.05, 0.05]), which indicates that there was no effect of immediate feedback compared with delayed feedback on student learning that generalizes across classes. Furthermore, there were no credibly nonzero effects for 40 preregistered moderators related to class-level and student-level characteristics. Yet our results provide hints that in certain kinds of classes, which were undersampled in the current study, there may be modest advantages for delayed feedback. More broadly, these findings provide insights regarding the feasibility of conducting within-class randomized experiments across a range of naturally occurring learning environments.","PeriodicalId":55645,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":15.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/25152459211027575","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ManyClasses 1: Assessing the Generalizable Effect of Immediate Feedback Versus Delayed Feedback Across Many College Classes\",\"authors\":\"Emily R. Fyfe, J. D. Leeuw, Paulo F. Carvalho, Robert L. Goldstone, Janelle Sherman, D. Admiraal, Laura K. Alford, Alison Bonner, C. Brassil, Christopher A. Brooks, Tracey Carbonetto, Sau Hou Chang, Laura Cruz, Melina T. Czymoniewicz-Klippel, F. Daniel, M. Driessen, Noel Habashy, Carrie Hanson-Bradley, E. Hirt, Virginia Hojas Carbonell, Daniel K. Jackson, Shay Jones, Jennifer L. Keagy, Brandi Keith, Sarah J. Malmquist, B. McQuarrie, K. Metzger, Maung Min, S. Patil, Ryan S. Patrick, Etienne Pelaprat, Maureen L. Petrunich-Rutherford, Meghan R. Porter, Kristina K. Prescott, Cathrine Reck, Terri Renner, E. Robbins, Adam R. Smith, P. Stuczynski, J. Thompson, N. Tsotakos, J. Turk, Kyle Unruh, Jennifer Webb, S. Whitehead, E. Wisniewski, Ke Anne Zhang, Benjamin A. Motz\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/25152459211027575\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Psychology researchers have long attempted to identify educational practices that improve student learning. However, experimental research on these practices is often conducted in laboratory contexts or in a single course, which threatens the external validity of the results. In this article, we establish an experimental paradigm for evaluating the benefits of recommended practices across a variety of authentic educational contexts—a model we call ManyClasses. The core feature is that researchers examine the same research question and measure the same experimental effect across many classes spanning a range of topics, institutions, teacher implementations, and student populations. We report the first ManyClasses study, in which we examined how the timing of feedback on class assignments, either immediate or delayed by a few days, affected subsequent performance on class assessments. Across 38 classes, the overall estimate for the effect of feedback timing was 0.002 (95% highest density interval = [−0.05, 0.05]), which indicates that there was no effect of immediate feedback compared with delayed feedback on student learning that generalizes across classes. Furthermore, there were no credibly nonzero effects for 40 preregistered moderators related to class-level and student-level characteristics. Yet our results provide hints that in certain kinds of classes, which were undersampled in the current study, there may be modest advantages for delayed feedback. More broadly, these findings provide insights regarding the feasibility of conducting within-class randomized experiments across a range of naturally occurring learning environments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55645,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":15.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/25152459211027575\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211027575\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211027575","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

长期以来,心理学研究人员一直试图找出提高学生学习能力的教育实践。然而,这些实践的实验研究往往是在实验室背景下或在单一课程中进行的,这威胁到结果的外部有效性。在本文中,我们建立了一个实验范例,用于评估各种真实教育环境中推荐实践的好处——我们称之为ManyClasses的模型。核心特征是研究人员检查相同的研究问题,并测量跨越一系列主题、机构、教师实施和学生群体的许多班级的相同实验效果。我们报告了第一个ManyClasses研究,在该研究中,我们检查了课堂作业反馈的时间,无论是立即的还是延迟几天的,如何影响课堂评估的后续表现。在38个班级中,反馈时间影响的总体估计为0.002(95%最高密度区间=[−0.05,0.05]),这表明即时反馈与延迟反馈相比,对学生学习的影响没有跨班级的普遍性。此外,40个预先注册的调节因子在班级水平和学生水平特征方面没有可信的非零效应。然而,我们的结果提供了一些提示,即在当前研究中样本不足的某些类别中,延迟反馈可能有适度的优势。更广泛地说,这些发现为在一系列自然发生的学习环境中进行课堂随机实验的可行性提供了见解。
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
ManyClasses 1: Assessing the Generalizable Effect of Immediate Feedback Versus Delayed Feedback Across Many College Classes
Psychology researchers have long attempted to identify educational practices that improve student learning. However, experimental research on these practices is often conducted in laboratory contexts or in a single course, which threatens the external validity of the results. In this article, we establish an experimental paradigm for evaluating the benefits of recommended practices across a variety of authentic educational contexts—a model we call ManyClasses. The core feature is that researchers examine the same research question and measure the same experimental effect across many classes spanning a range of topics, institutions, teacher implementations, and student populations. We report the first ManyClasses study, in which we examined how the timing of feedback on class assignments, either immediate or delayed by a few days, affected subsequent performance on class assessments. Across 38 classes, the overall estimate for the effect of feedback timing was 0.002 (95% highest density interval = [−0.05, 0.05]), which indicates that there was no effect of immediate feedback compared with delayed feedback on student learning that generalizes across classes. Furthermore, there were no credibly nonzero effects for 40 preregistered moderators related to class-level and student-level characteristics. Yet our results provide hints that in certain kinds of classes, which were undersampled in the current study, there may be modest advantages for delayed feedback. More broadly, these findings provide insights regarding the feasibility of conducting within-class randomized experiments across a range of naturally occurring learning environments.
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
21.20
自引率
0.70%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: In 2021, Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science will undergo a transition to become an open access journal. This journal focuses on publishing innovative developments in research methods, practices, and conduct within the field of psychological science. It embraces a wide range of areas and topics and encourages the integration of methodological and analytical questions. The aim of AMPPS is to bring the latest methodological advances to researchers from various disciplines, even those who are not methodological experts. Therefore, the journal seeks submissions that are accessible to readers with different research interests and that represent the diverse research trends within the field of psychological science. The types of content that AMPPS welcomes include articles that communicate advancements in methods, practices, and metascience, as well as empirical scientific best practices. Additionally, tutorials, commentaries, and simulation studies on new techniques and research tools are encouraged. The journal also aims to publish papers that bring advances from specialized subfields to a broader audience. Lastly, AMPPS accepts Registered Replication Reports, which focus on replicating important findings from previously published studies. Overall, the transition of Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science to an open access journal aims to increase accessibility and promote the dissemination of new developments in research methods and practices within the field of psychological science.
期刊最新文献
Bayesian Analysis of Cross-Sectional Networks: A Tutorial in R and JASP Conducting Research With People in Lower-Socioeconomic-Status Contexts Keeping Meta-Analyses Alive and Well: A Tutorial on Implementing and Using Community-Augmented Meta-Analyses in PsychOpen CAMA A Practical Guide to Conversation Research: How to Study What People Say to Each Other Impossible Hypotheses and Effect-Size Limits
×
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