行动研究最终报告的元评价

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 Zeitschrift Fur Evaluation Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.31244/zfe.2023.01.05
Alena Seberová
{"title":"行动研究最终报告的元评价","authors":"Alena Seberová","doi":"10.31244/zfe.2023.01.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the theoretical part of this article, we discuss the complementarity of action research and evaluation research in the context of the construct of meta-evaluation and of evaluation standards as a starting point for the quality requirements of final research reports. The empirical part of the research concentrates on describing the design of qualitative research and its outcomes, the aim of which is to describe the course and the findings of a meta-evaluation of action research reports written by students of teaching. The findings show that within one and the same research report, the content of each category differs in quality. In the analysed reports, categories connected to describing recommendations for pedagogical practice have proven problematic, despite the fact that recommendations are meant to be an essential finding of action research.","PeriodicalId":41629,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Evaluation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Meta-Evaluation of Action Research Final Reports\",\"authors\":\"Alena Seberová\",\"doi\":\"10.31244/zfe.2023.01.05\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the theoretical part of this article, we discuss the complementarity of action research and evaluation research in the context of the construct of meta-evaluation and of evaluation standards as a starting point for the quality requirements of final research reports. The empirical part of the research concentrates on describing the design of qualitative research and its outcomes, the aim of which is to describe the course and the findings of a meta-evaluation of action research reports written by students of teaching. The findings show that within one and the same research report, the content of each category differs in quality. In the analysed reports, categories connected to describing recommendations for pedagogical practice have proven problematic, despite the fact that recommendations are meant to be an essential finding of action research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41629,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift Fur Evaluation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift Fur Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31244/zfe.2023.01.05\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift Fur Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31244/zfe.2023.01.05","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本文的理论部分,我们在构建元评价和评价标准的背景下讨论了行动研究和评价研究的互补性,并以此作为最终研究报告质量要求的起点。研究的实证部分集中于描述定性研究的设计及其结果,其目的是描述课程和对教学学生撰写的行动研究报告进行元评估的结果。研究结果表明,在同一份研究报告中,每个类别的内容质量不同。在分析的报告中,与描述教学实践建议有关的类别已被证明是有问题的,尽管建议本应是行动研究的基本发现。
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
A Meta-Evaluation of Action Research Final Reports
In the theoretical part of this article, we discuss the complementarity of action research and evaluation research in the context of the construct of meta-evaluation and of evaluation standards as a starting point for the quality requirements of final research reports. The empirical part of the research concentrates on describing the design of qualitative research and its outcomes, the aim of which is to describe the course and the findings of a meta-evaluation of action research reports written by students of teaching. The findings show that within one and the same research report, the content of each category differs in quality. In the analysed reports, categories connected to describing recommendations for pedagogical practice have proven problematic, despite the fact that recommendations are meant to be an essential finding of action research.
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
Zeitschrift Fur Evaluation
Zeitschrift Fur Evaluation SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
33.30%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
Die Kompetenzstelle der Bundesregierung für Evaluierung im Statistischen Bundesamt Meta-Evaluierungen von Projektevaluierungen in der Praxis: Erfahrungen aus der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH Terms of Reference Matter – Insights from Evaluations of Finnish Development Cooperation Machtwissen? Evaluation zwischen Evidenz und (Mikro-)Politik. Persönliche Eindrücke zur Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Evaluation e.V. (DeGEval), 14.–16. September 2022 Hybride Lehre an Universitäten – eine Evaluation hybrider Seminare am Beispiel des Kompetenzzentrums Weiterbildung Allgemeinmedizin Saarland
×
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