Questioning central assumptions of the ICAP frameworkErstpublikation in: npj Science of Learning volume 8, Article number: 49 (2023)
Publikationsdatum:
|
|
Diese Seite wurde seit mehr als 7 Monaten inhaltlich nicht mehr aktualisiert.
Unter Umständen ist sie nicht mehr aktuell.
Zusammenfassungen
In sum, we argue that observing whether a student is watching
a video, taking notes, writing summaries, or discussing with other
students is not sufficiently reliable to gain insight into learning
processes. It is crucial to systematically monitor and assess the
covert learning processes to reach a certain learning goal. The
ICAP framework, however, does not provide guidance on how to
generate and use such diagnostic information on students´covert
learning processes. In contrast, the systematic use of formative
assessment techniques provides a flexible, scalable, generalizable,
and evidence-based toolbox for practitioners. Systematic use of
formative assessment may put a higher demand on practitioners’
shoulders than following the ICAP framework, but it will provide
them with more valuable and valid information that they can use
to flexibly adapt instruction to the classroom and effectively
support students’ learning.
Von Christian M. Thurn, Peter A. Edelsbrunner, Michal Berkowitz, Anne Deiglmayr, Lennart Schalk im Text Questioning central assumptions of the ICAP framework (2023) The goal of this comment is to critically discuss two core
assumptions of the ICAP framework. The first is that different
modes of cognitive engagement are to “be detected by overt
behaviors”2. The second is that the four engagement modes are
hierarchically ordered regarding their effectiveness for learning,
with the interactive mode being the most effective1,2. We agree
with the authors of the ICAP framework that communicating to
practitioners on how to support students’ learning is of utmost
importance. However, we argue that these two assumptions of the
ICAP framework—detection via overt behaviors and hierarchical
ordering of engagement modes—likely lead to wrong inferences
in practice, and do not correspond well with research on effective
learning and instruction. We first outline these two points of
criticism, shortly scrutinizing their empirical basis. Note that this
comment is not aimed at systematically reviewing empirical
research on the ICAP framework. Rather, we take a look at specific
studies that have been reported as strong support for the ICAP
framework, and we bring up general insights from the last
decades of educational research that question the validity of the
framework. Afterward, we discuss potential steps forward.
Von Christian M. Thurn, Peter A. Edelsbrunner, Michal Berkowitz, Anne Deiglmayr, Lennart Schalk im Text Questioning central assumptions of the ICAP framework (2023) Closing the research-practice gap in education is an important aim. The ICAP framework (for interactive, constructive, active, and passive engagement modes) explicitly targets this aim and has gained broad attention. The ICAP framework is supposed to support practitioners in translating research findings into practice by distinguishing between four modes of student engagement. In this comment, we consider two central assumptions of the ICAP framework. First, the four modes of engagement are assumed to be “reflected in the overt behavior the student exhibits while undertaking an activity”, and thus observable for teachers. Second, the ICAP framework assumes that the interactive mode of engagement is most effective for learning, followed by constructive, then active, and lastly passive modes (i.e. I > C > A > P, the so-called ‘ICAP-hypothesis’). We argue that both assumptions are inconsistent with central tenets of empirical educational research. First, it is not sufficient to rely on overt behaviors as indicators of learning, because they are ambiguous with respect to the underlying learning process and do not reliably indicate them. Second, there is no “one size fits all”-order of engagement modes. Supposedly inferior engagement modes excel when used in the right way, on the right learners, and with the right timing regarding the learning process. We elucidate the use of formative assessment to gain insight into covert learning processes. Whereas the ICAP framework provides a seemingly plausible and easily actionable guide for practice, practitioners should not be advised to rely on ICAP for selecting effective interventions and assessing learning processes in the classroom.
Von Christian M. Thurn, Peter A. Edelsbrunner, Michal Berkowitz, Anne Deiglmayr, Lennart Schalk im Text Questioning central assumptions of the ICAP framework (2023) Dieser wissenschaftliche Zeitschriftenartikel erwähnt ...
Personen KB IB clear | Michelene T. H. Chi , Inger Marie Dalehefte , Constanze Herweg , Mareike Kobarg , Manfred Prenzel , Rolf Rimmele , Katharina Schwindt , Tina Seidel , Ruth Wylie | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Begriffe KB IB clear | formative Beurteilung , ICAP framework , LehrerInteacher , Lernenlearning , Schuleschool , Sichtstrukturen des Unterrichts , Tiefenstrukturen des Unterrichts , Unterricht | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bücher |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Texte |
|
Dieser wissenschaftliche Zeitschriftenartikel erwähnt vermutlich nicht ...
Nicht erwähnte Begriffe | Bildung, Digitalisierung, Kinder, Primarschule (1-6) / Grundschule (1-4), Schweiz, summative Beurteilung |
Tagcloud
Zitationsgraph
Anderswo finden
Volltext dieses Dokuments
Questioning central assumptions of the ICAP framework: Artikel als Volltext (: , 569 kByte; : ) |
Anderswo suchen
Beat und dieser wissenschaftliche Zeitschriftenartikel
Beat hat Dieser wissenschaftliche Zeitschriftenartikel während seiner Zeit am Institut für Medien und Schule (IMS) ins Biblionetz aufgenommen. Er hat Dieser wissenschaftliche Zeitschriftenartikel einmalig erfasst und bisher nicht mehr bearbeitet. Beat besitzt kein physisches, aber ein digitales Exemplar. Eine digitale Version ist auf dem Internet verfügbar (s.o.). Es gibt bisher nur wenige Objekte im Biblionetz, die dieses Werk zitieren.