特殊教育中的观察研究:观察系统有效性证据的综合

IF 8.3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Review of Educational Research Pub Date : 2021-09-18 DOI:10.3102/00346543211042419
Wendy J. Rodgers, Hannah Morris-Mathews, J. Romig, Elizabeth F. Bettini
{"title":"特殊教育中的观察研究:观察系统有效性证据的综合","authors":"Wendy J. Rodgers, Hannah Morris-Mathews, J. Romig, Elizabeth F. Bettini","doi":"10.3102/00346543211042419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Classroom observation research plays an important role in policy, practice, and scholarship for students with disabilities. When interpreting results of observation studies, it is important to consider the validity evidence provided by researchers and how that speaks to the intended use of those results. In this literature synthesis, we used Kane’s argument-based approach to validity to describe evidence of validity for uses of observation instruments in classroom observation research regarding teachers of students with disabilities. We identified 102 studies from 1975 to 2020 that met inclusion criteria. Results indicated many studies did not report validity evidence to support their use of the observation instruments. Over time, reporting levels for much of the evidence has remained relatively constant, but we noted a consistent decrease in number of observations conducted per teacher and a consistent and large increase in reporting of teacher participant characteristics. We provide implications of this for research and practice and suggestions for improving classroom observation research.","PeriodicalId":21145,"journal":{"name":"Review of Educational Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Observation Studies in Special Education: A Synthesis of Validity Evidence for Observation Systems\",\"authors\":\"Wendy J. Rodgers, Hannah Morris-Mathews, J. Romig, Elizabeth F. Bettini\",\"doi\":\"10.3102/00346543211042419\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Classroom observation research plays an important role in policy, practice, and scholarship for students with disabilities. When interpreting results of observation studies, it is important to consider the validity evidence provided by researchers and how that speaks to the intended use of those results. In this literature synthesis, we used Kane’s argument-based approach to validity to describe evidence of validity for uses of observation instruments in classroom observation research regarding teachers of students with disabilities. We identified 102 studies from 1975 to 2020 that met inclusion criteria. Results indicated many studies did not report validity evidence to support their use of the observation instruments. Over time, reporting levels for much of the evidence has remained relatively constant, but we noted a consistent decrease in number of observations conducted per teacher and a consistent and large increase in reporting of teacher participant characteristics. We provide implications of this for research and practice and suggestions for improving classroom observation research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21145,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Educational Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Educational Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211042419\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"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":"Review of Educational Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211042419","RegionNum":1,"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: 5

摘要

课堂观察研究在残疾学生的政策、实践和学术研究中发挥着重要作用。在解释观察研究的结果时,重要的是要考虑研究人员提供的有效性证据,以及这如何说明这些结果的预期用途。在这篇文献综述中,我们使用凯恩的基于论点的有效性方法来描述在针对残疾学生教师的课堂观察研究中使用观察工具的有效性证据。我们从1975年到2020年确定了102项符合纳入标准的研究。结果表明,许多研究并没有报告有效性证据来支持他们使用观察仪器。随着时间的推移,大部分证据的报告水平保持相对恒定,但我们注意到,每位教师进行的观察次数持续减少,教师参与者特征的报告持续大幅增加。我们为研究和实践提供了启示,并为改进课堂观察研究提出了建议。
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
Observation Studies in Special Education: A Synthesis of Validity Evidence for Observation Systems
Classroom observation research plays an important role in policy, practice, and scholarship for students with disabilities. When interpreting results of observation studies, it is important to consider the validity evidence provided by researchers and how that speaks to the intended use of those results. In this literature synthesis, we used Kane’s argument-based approach to validity to describe evidence of validity for uses of observation instruments in classroom observation research regarding teachers of students with disabilities. We identified 102 studies from 1975 to 2020 that met inclusion criteria. Results indicated many studies did not report validity evidence to support their use of the observation instruments. Over time, reporting levels for much of the evidence has remained relatively constant, but we noted a consistent decrease in number of observations conducted per teacher and a consistent and large increase in reporting of teacher participant characteristics. We provide implications of this for research and practice and suggestions for improving classroom observation 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
Review of Educational Research
Review of Educational Research EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
24.10
自引率
2.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The Review of Educational Research (RER), a quarterly publication initiated in 1931 with approximately 640 pages per volume year, is dedicated to presenting critical, integrative reviews of research literature relevant to education. These reviews encompass conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of scholarly work across fields broadly pertinent to education and educational research. Welcoming submissions from any discipline, RER encourages research reviews in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided the review addresses educational issues. While original empirical research is not published independently, RER incorporates it within broader integrative reviews. The journal may occasionally feature solicited, rigorously refereed analytic reviews of special topics, especially from disciplines underrepresented in educational research.
期刊最新文献
Teachers’ Beliefs About Language Diversity and Multilingual Learners: A Systematic Review of the Literature Studying the Effectiveness of Team Teaching: A Systematic Review on the Conceptual and Methodological Credibility of Experimental Studies Leveraging Physical Activities to Support Learning for Young People via Technologies: An Examination of Educational Practices Across the Field Robot-Assisted Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis Does Aid Matter? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Grant Aid on College Student Outcomes
×
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