Differences in Research Literacy in Educational Science Depending on Study Program and University
[EN] The ability to purposefully access, reflect on, and use evidence from educational research (Educational Research Literacy, ERL) are key competencies of future professionals in educational practice. Based on the conceptual framework presented in this paper, a test instrument was developed to ass...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | capítulo de libro |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2017 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV) |
| Repositorio: | RiuNet. Repositorio Institucional de la Universitat Politécnica de Valéncia |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:riunet.upv.es:10251/104526 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/104526 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Higher Education Learning Educational systems Teaching Educational Research Literacy Educational Science Higher education research Competency tests |
| Sumario: | [EN] The ability to purposefully access, reflect on, and use evidence from educational research (Educational Research Literacy, ERL) are key competencies of future professionals in educational practice. Based on the conceptual framework presented in this paper, a test instrument was developed to assess ERL, consisting of the competence facets Information Literacy, Statistical Literacy, and Evidence-based Reasoning. This contribution aims to delve deeper into the question of whether Educational Science students differ in their overall ERL proficiency depending on their study program and university. This comparison is based on a large-scale study of 1,213 Educational Science students (Teacher Training and Educational Studies) at six German universities in the winter semester of 2012/13 and in the summer semester of 2013. The results indicate that students seem to profit from their studies at the different universities. Moreover, the ERL competence facets differentiate to some extent between universities and degree programs, which can serve as the starting point for curricular quality development measures. Subsequently, the results are critically discussed, and the desiderata for future research are stated, e.g., the identification of predictors that cause the reported differences. |
|---|