Betty Tärning, Y. Lee, Richard Andersson, Kristian Månsson, Agneta Gulz, Magnus Haake
{"title":"评估小学数字教育游戏中反馈忽视的黑箱","authors":"Betty Tärning, Y. Lee, Richard Andersson, Kristian Månsson, Agneta Gulz, Magnus Haake","doi":"10.1080/10508406.2020.1770092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background: Previous research shows that critical constructive feedback, that scaffolds students to improve on tasks, often remains untapped. The paper’s aim is to illuminate at what stages students provided with such feedback drop out of feedback processing. Methods: In our model, students can drop out at any of five stages of feedback processing: (1) noticing, (2) decoding, (3) making sense, (4) acting upon, and (5) using feedback to make progress. Eye-tracking was used to measure noticing and decoding of feedback. Behavioral data-logging tracked students’ use of feedback and potential progress. Three feedback signaling conditions were experimentally compared: a pedagogical agent, an animated arrow, and no signaling (control condition). Findings: Students dropped out at each stage and few made it past the final stage. The agent condition led to significantly less feedback neglect at the two first stages, suggesting that students who are not initially inclined to notice and read feedback text can be influenced into doing so. Contribution: The study provides a model and method to build more fine-grained knowledge of students’ (non)processing of feedback. More knowledge on at what stages students drop out and why can inform methods to counteract drop out and scaffold more productive and fruitful responses.","PeriodicalId":48043,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":"511 - 549"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the black box of feedback neglect in a digital educational game for elementary school\",\"authors\":\"Betty Tärning, Y. Lee, Richard Andersson, Kristian Månsson, Agneta Gulz, Magnus Haake\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10508406.2020.1770092\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Background: Previous research shows that critical constructive feedback, that scaffolds students to improve on tasks, often remains untapped. The paper’s aim is to illuminate at what stages students provided with such feedback drop out of feedback processing. Methods: In our model, students can drop out at any of five stages of feedback processing: (1) noticing, (2) decoding, (3) making sense, (4) acting upon, and (5) using feedback to make progress. Eye-tracking was used to measure noticing and decoding of feedback. Behavioral data-logging tracked students’ use of feedback and potential progress. Three feedback signaling conditions were experimentally compared: a pedagogical agent, an animated arrow, and no signaling (control condition). Findings: Students dropped out at each stage and few made it past the final stage. The agent condition led to significantly less feedback neglect at the two first stages, suggesting that students who are not initially inclined to notice and read feedback text can be influenced into doing so. Contribution: The study provides a model and method to build more fine-grained knowledge of students’ (non)processing of feedback. More knowledge on at what stages students drop out and why can inform methods to counteract drop out and scaffold more productive and fruitful responses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48043,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Learning Sciences\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"511 - 549\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Learning Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2020.1770092\",\"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":"Journal of the Learning Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2020.1770092","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}
Assessing the black box of feedback neglect in a digital educational game for elementary school
ABSTRACT Background: Previous research shows that critical constructive feedback, that scaffolds students to improve on tasks, often remains untapped. The paper’s aim is to illuminate at what stages students provided with such feedback drop out of feedback processing. Methods: In our model, students can drop out at any of five stages of feedback processing: (1) noticing, (2) decoding, (3) making sense, (4) acting upon, and (5) using feedback to make progress. Eye-tracking was used to measure noticing and decoding of feedback. Behavioral data-logging tracked students’ use of feedback and potential progress. Three feedback signaling conditions were experimentally compared: a pedagogical agent, an animated arrow, and no signaling (control condition). Findings: Students dropped out at each stage and few made it past the final stage. The agent condition led to significantly less feedback neglect at the two first stages, suggesting that students who are not initially inclined to notice and read feedback text can be influenced into doing so. Contribution: The study provides a model and method to build more fine-grained knowledge of students’ (non)processing of feedback. More knowledge on at what stages students drop out and why can inform methods to counteract drop out and scaffold more productive and fruitful responses.
期刊介绍:
Journal of the Learning Sciences (JLS) is one of the two official journals of the International Society of the Learning Sciences ( www.isls.org). JLS provides a multidisciplinary forum for research on education and learning that informs theories of how people learn and the design of learning environments. It publishes research that elucidates processes of learning, and the ways in which technologies, instructional practices, and learning environments can be designed to support learning in different contexts. JLS articles draw on theoretical frameworks from such diverse fields as cognitive science, sociocultural theory, educational psychology, computer science, and anthropology. Submissions are not limited to any particular research method, but must be based on rigorous analyses that present new insights into how people learn and/or how learning can be supported and enhanced. Successful submissions should position their argument within extant literature in the learning sciences. They should reflect the core practices and foci that have defined the learning sciences as a field: privileging design in methodology and pedagogy; emphasizing interdisciplinarity and methodological innovation; grounding research in real-world contexts; answering questions about learning process and mechanism, alongside outcomes; pursuing technological and pedagogical innovation; and maintaining a strong connection between research and practice.