管理风险和设置如何影响学生在生物概念评估中的行为和表现。

IF 4.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Cbe-Life Sciences Education Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1187/cbe.22-09-0181
Crystal Uminski, Joanna K Hubbard, Brian A Couch
{"title":"管理风险和设置如何影响学生在生物概念评估中的行为和表现。","authors":"Crystal Uminski,&nbsp;Joanna K Hubbard,&nbsp;Brian A Couch","doi":"10.1187/cbe.22-09-0181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Biology instructors use concept assessments in their courses to gauge student understanding of important disciplinary ideas. Instructors can choose to administer concept assessments based on participation (i.e., lower stakes) or the correctness of responses (i.e., higher stakes), and students can complete the assessment in an in-class or out-of-class setting. Different administration conditions may affect how students engage with and perform on concept assessments, thus influencing how instructors should interpret the resulting scores. Building on a validity framework, we collected data from 1578 undergraduate students over 5 years under five different administration conditions. We did not find significant differences in scores between lower-stakes in-class, higher-stakes in-class, and lower-stakes out-of-class conditions, indicating a degree of equivalence among these three options. We found that students were likely to spend more time and have higher scores in the higher-stakes out-of-class condition. However, we suggest that instructors cautiously interpret scores from this condition, as it may be associated with an increased use of external resources. Taken together, we highlight the lower-stakes out-of-class condition as a widely applicable option that produces outcomes similar to in-class conditions, while respecting the common desire to preserve classroom instructional time.</p>","PeriodicalId":56321,"journal":{"name":"Cbe-Life Sciences Education","volume":"22 2","pages":"ar27"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/1f/91/cbe-22-ar27.PMC10228266.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Administration Stakes and Settings Affect Student Behavior and Performance on a Biology Concept Assessment.\",\"authors\":\"Crystal Uminski,&nbsp;Joanna K Hubbard,&nbsp;Brian A Couch\",\"doi\":\"10.1187/cbe.22-09-0181\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Biology instructors use concept assessments in their courses to gauge student understanding of important disciplinary ideas. Instructors can choose to administer concept assessments based on participation (i.e., lower stakes) or the correctness of responses (i.e., higher stakes), and students can complete the assessment in an in-class or out-of-class setting. Different administration conditions may affect how students engage with and perform on concept assessments, thus influencing how instructors should interpret the resulting scores. Building on a validity framework, we collected data from 1578 undergraduate students over 5 years under five different administration conditions. We did not find significant differences in scores between lower-stakes in-class, higher-stakes in-class, and lower-stakes out-of-class conditions, indicating a degree of equivalence among these three options. We found that students were likely to spend more time and have higher scores in the higher-stakes out-of-class condition. However, we suggest that instructors cautiously interpret scores from this condition, as it may be associated with an increased use of external resources. Taken together, we highlight the lower-stakes out-of-class condition as a widely applicable option that produces outcomes similar to in-class conditions, while respecting the common desire to preserve classroom instructional time.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56321,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cbe-Life Sciences Education\",\"volume\":\"22 2\",\"pages\":\"ar27\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/1f/91/cbe-22-ar27.PMC10228266.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cbe-Life Sciences Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-09-0181\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cbe-Life Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-09-0181","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生物学教师在他们的课程中使用概念评估来衡量学生对重要学科思想的理解。教师可以选择基于参与(即低风险)或回答的正确性(即高风险)来管理概念评估,学生可以在课堂内或课外环境中完成评估。不同的管理条件可能会影响学生参与和执行概念评估的方式,从而影响教师如何解释结果分数。在效度框架的基础上,我们收集了在五种不同管理条件下的1578名本科生的数据。我们没有发现低风险班级、高风险班级和低风险班级外条件之间的得分有显著差异,表明这三种选择之间存在一定程度的等效。我们发现,在高风险的课外条件下,学生可能会花更多的时间和更高的分数。然而,我们建议教师从这种情况中谨慎地解释分数,因为它可能与外部资源的使用增加有关。综上所述,我们强调低风险的课外条件是一种广泛适用的选择,它产生的结果与课堂条件相似,同时尊重保留课堂教学时间的共同愿望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
How Administration Stakes and Settings Affect Student Behavior and Performance on a Biology Concept Assessment.

Biology instructors use concept assessments in their courses to gauge student understanding of important disciplinary ideas. Instructors can choose to administer concept assessments based on participation (i.e., lower stakes) or the correctness of responses (i.e., higher stakes), and students can complete the assessment in an in-class or out-of-class setting. Different administration conditions may affect how students engage with and perform on concept assessments, thus influencing how instructors should interpret the resulting scores. Building on a validity framework, we collected data from 1578 undergraduate students over 5 years under five different administration conditions. We did not find significant differences in scores between lower-stakes in-class, higher-stakes in-class, and lower-stakes out-of-class conditions, indicating a degree of equivalence among these three options. We found that students were likely to spend more time and have higher scores in the higher-stakes out-of-class condition. However, we suggest that instructors cautiously interpret scores from this condition, as it may be associated with an increased use of external resources. Taken together, we highlight the lower-stakes out-of-class condition as a widely applicable option that produces outcomes similar to in-class conditions, while respecting the common desire to preserve classroom instructional time.

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
Cbe-Life Sciences Education
Cbe-Life Sciences Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
13.50%
发文量
100
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CBE—Life Sciences Education (LSE), a free, online quarterly journal, is published by the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB). The journal was launched in spring 2002 as Cell Biology Education—A Journal of Life Science Education. The ASCB changed the name of the journal in spring 2006 to better reflect the breadth of its readership and the scope of its submissions. LSE publishes peer-reviewed articles on life science education at the K–12, undergraduate, and graduate levels. The ASCB believes that learning in biology encompasses diverse fields, including math, chemistry, physics, engineering, computer science, and the interdisciplinary intersections of biology with these fields. Within biology, LSE focuses on how students are introduced to the study of life sciences, as well as approaches in cell biology, developmental biology, neuroscience, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, genomics, bioinformatics, and proteomics.
期刊最新文献
Disrupting the Master Narrative in Academic Biology as LGBTQ+ Ph.D. Students: Learning, Teaching, and Conducting Research. Examining How Student Identities Interact with an Immersive Field Ecology Course and its Implications for Graduate School Education. Factors Influencing the Use of Evidence-based Instructional Practices by Community College Biology Instructors. Bee The CURE: Increasing Student Science Self-Efficacy, Science Identity, and Predictors of Scientific Civic Engagement in a Community College CURE. Is Support in the Anxiety of the Beholder? How Anxiety Interacts with Perceptions of Instructor Support in Introductory Biology Classes.
×
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