The Underlying Cognitive Processes of Thin Slices Judgments on Teaching Quality
Main Article Content
Abstract
Thin slices ratings (i.e., ratings based on first impressions) have yielded intriguingly accurate results in various domains. Among other, researcher have applied the thin slices technique to assess instructional quality, showing that teacher-student interactions can be reliably inferred by just very short snippets of classroom instruction. The accuracy of thin slices ratings is often explained by dual process theories of social cognition, whereby System 1 refers to an intuitive and fast way of processing, while System 2 denotes a more reflective and analytical way of processing. System 1 is considered the cognitive foundation of thin slices ratings. The central aim of the present study was to understand the underlying cognitive processes shaping the impression formation of thin slices raters of teaching quality. Therefore, an unconventional and innovative research design was required to gain insights into the cognitive “black box” of thin slices raters by examining their verbal data. In an exploratory mixed method research design, we set up Cognitive Laboratories with two different rating situations. In a thin slices rating situation, participants rated instructional quality based on short classroom videos (30 seconds). Participants in a long-video rating situation rated instructional quality based on longer classroom videos (10 minutes). We collected, coded and statistically analyzed participants’ verbal reports regarding their rating processes. The findings suggest that thin slices ratings evolve primarily based on typical processes of System 1 and not on those of System 2. For instance, thin slices ratings are associative and tend to be rather negative than positive. Moreover, an initially formed impression tends to remain stable and is resistant to alteration. Ratings of instructional quality based on longer videos rely on both cognitive systems, with System 2 possibly modifying an initial judgment. Thus, our study does not only explain the cognitive processes under-lying the thin slices ratings, but additionally provides valuable insights into the processes occurring in conventional rating settings.
Article Details
FLR adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Common License (BY-NC-ND). That is, Copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the authors with, however, first publication rights granted to the journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.
References
Aleamoni, L. M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(2), 153–156. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008168421283
Ambady, N. (2010). The perils of pondering: Intuition and thin slice judgments. Psychological Inquiry, 21(4), 271–278. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.431
Ambady, N., Bernieri, F. J., & Richeson, J. A. (2000). Toward a histology of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 201–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(00)80006-4
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.431
Ambady, N., & Skowronski, J. J. (Eds.). (2008). First impressions. Guilford Press.
Ames, D. R., Kammrath, L. K., Suppes, A., & Bolger, N. (2010). Not so fast: The (not-quite-complete) dissociation between accuracy and confidence in thin-slice impressions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(2), 264–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209354519
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41(3), 258–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055756
Audacity Team. (2020). Audacity recording and editing software (Version 2.4.2) [Computer software]. https://www.audacity.de/
Babad, E. (2005). Guessing teachers’ differential treatment of high- and low-achievers from thin slices of their public lecturing behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-005-2744-y
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Neubrand, M., & Tsai, Y.-M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345157
Begrich, L., Fauth, B., & Kunter, M. (2020). Who sees the most? Differences in students’ and educational research experts’ first impressions of classroom instruction. Social Psychology of Education, 23(3), 673–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09554-2
Begrich, L., Fauth, B., Kunter, M., & Klieme, E. (2017). Wie informativ ist der erste Eindruck? Das Thin-Slices-Verfahren zur videobasierten Erfassung des Unterrichts [How informative is the first impression? The thin slices technique as video-based assessment of teaching quality]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 20(1), 23–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-017-0730-x
Begrich, L., Kuger, S., Klieme, E., & Kunter, M. (2021). At a first glance – How reliable and valid is the thin slices technique to assess instructional quality? Learning and Instruction, 74, 101466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101466
Bellini-Leite, S. C. (2018). Dual process theory: Systems, types, minds, modes, kinds or metaphors? A critical review. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 9(2), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-017-0376-x
Berliner, D. C. (2005). The near impossibility of testing for teacher quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105275904
Biesanz, J. C., Human, L. J., Paquin, A.-C., Chan, M., Parisotto, K. L., Sarracino, J., & Gillis, R. L. (2011). Do we know when our impressions of others are valid? Evidence for realistic accuracy awareness in first impressions of personality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(5), 452–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610397211
Borkenau, P., Mauer, N., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., & Angleitner, A. (2004). Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4), 599–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.599
Brennan, R. L., & Prediger, D. J. (1981). Coefficient kappa: Some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(3), 687–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448104100307
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475
Clausen, M. (2002). Unterrichtsqualität: Eine Frage der Perspektive? [Quality of instruction: A matter of perspective?]. Waxmann.
Cope, M. (2010). Coding qualitative data. Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, 3, 281–294.
Decristan, J., Kunter, M., & Fauth, B. (2022). Die Bedeutung individueller Merkmale und konstruktiver Unterstützung der Lehrkraft für die soziale Integration von Schülerinnen und Schülern im Mathematikunterricht der Sekundarstufe [The relevance of individual characteristics and teacher‘s constructive support for students‘ social integration in mathematics instruction in secondary education]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 36(1–2), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000329
Decristan, J., Kunter, M., Fauth, B., Büttner, G., Hardy, I., & Hertel, S. (2016). What role does instructional quality play for elementary school children’s science competence? A focus on students at risk. Journal for Educational Research Online, 8(1), 66–89. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:12032
de Freitas, E. (2015). The moving image in education research: Reassembling the body in classroom video data. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(4), 553–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2015.1077402
de Neys, W. (2021). On dual-and single-process models of thinking. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1412–1427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620964172
Desi-Konsortium (Eds.). (2008). Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch: Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie [Teaching and competency acquistion in German and English: Results of the DESI-study]. Beltz.
Desimone, L. M., Smith, T. M., & Frisvold, D. E. (2010). Survey measures of classroom instruction: Comparing student and teacher reports. Educational Policy, 24(2), 267–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808330173
Doyle, W. (2006). Ecological approaches to classroom management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, Practice, and Contemporary Issues (pp. 97–125). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Dresing, T., & Pehl, T. (2012). Praxisbuch Transkription: Regelsysteme, Software und Anleitungen für qualitative ForscherInnen (4th ed.) [Practical Guide to Transcription: Rule Systems, Software, and Instructions for Qualitative Researchers]. Eigenverlag.
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2006). Dual system theories of cognition: Some issues. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, (28), 202–207.
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2018). Dual process theory: Perspectives and problems. In W. de Neys (Ed.), Current Issues in Thinking and Reasoning. Dual Process Theory 2.0 (pp. 137–155). Routledge.
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2019). Reflections on reflection: The nature and function of type 2 processes in dual-process theories of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 25(4), 383–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2019.1623071
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
Fauth, B., Herbein, E., & Maier, J. L. (2024). Beobachtungsmanual zum Unterrichtsfeedbackbogen Tiefenstrukturen [Observation Manual for the Classroom Feedback Questionnaire on Deep-Structures]. Institut für Bildungsanalysen Baden-Württemberg.
Fowler, K. A., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Patrick, C. J. (2009). Detecting psychopathy from thin slices of behavior. Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014938
Gargani, J., & Strong, M. (2014). Can we identify a successful teacher better, faster, and cheaper? Evidence for innovating teacher observation systems. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(5), 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114542519
Gawronski, B., Luke, D. M., & Creighton, L. A. (2024). Dual-process theories. In D. E. Carlston, K. Hugenberg, & K. L. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition (2nd ed., pp. 319–353). Oxford University Press.
Göllner, R., Fauth, B., & Wagner, W. (2021). Student ratings of teaching quality dimensions: Empirical findings and future directions. In W. Rollett, H. Bijlsma, & S. Röhl (Eds.), Student Feedback on Teaching in Schools (pp. 111–122). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75150-0_7
Goodell, L. S., Stage, V. C., & Cooke, N. K. (2016). Practical qualitative research strategies: Training interviewers and coders. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 48(8), 578–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2016.06.001
Hall, J. A., Horgan, T. G., & Murphy, N. A. (2019). Nonverbal Communication. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 271–294. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103145
Hannafin, M. J., Shepherd, C. E., & Polly, D. (2010). Video assessment of classroom teaching practices: Lessons learned, problems and issues. Educational Technology, 59(1), 32–37.
Hardy, I., Hertel, S., Kunter, M., Klieme, E., Warwas, J., Büttner, G., & Lühken, A. (2011). Adaptive Lerngelegenheiten in der Grundschule. Merkmale, methodisch-didaktische Schwerpunktsetzungen und erforderliche Lehrerkompetenzen [Adaptive learning opportunities in elementary school. Characteristics, methodological-didactic prioritization and required teacher competences]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 57(6), 819–833. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:8783
Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel: A synthesis of over 2,100 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Helmke, A. (2014). Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität: Diagnose, Evaluation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts [Teaching Quality and Teacher Professionalism: Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Improvement of Instruction]. Klett/Kallmeyer.
Holleran, S. E., Mehl, M. R., & Levitt, S. (2009). Eavesdropping on social life: The accuracy of stranger ratings of daily behavior from thin slices of natural conversations. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(4), 660–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.03.017
Hyytinen, H., Holma, K., Toom, A., & Shavelson, R. J., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2014). The complex relationship between students’ critical thinking and epistemological beliefs in the context of problem solving. Frontline Learning Research, 2(5), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v2i4.124
Janik, T., & Seidel, T. (Eds.). (2013). The Power of Video Studies in Investigating Teaching and Learning in the Classroom. Waxman.
Jung, M. F. (2016). Coupling interactions and performance: Predicting team performance from thin slices of conflict. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 23(3), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/2753767
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. Macmillan.
Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering Feedback for Teaching: Combining High-Quality Observations with Student Surveys and Achievement Gains. Research Paper. MET Project. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Kawulich, B. B. (2004). Data analysis techniques in qualitative research. Journal of Research in Education, 14(1), 96–113.
Keren, G., & Schul, Y. (2009). Two is not always better than one: A critical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(6), 533–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01164.x
Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The Pythagoras study: Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In J. Tomáš & T. Seidel (Eds.), The Power of Video Studies in Investigating Teaching and Learning in the Classroom (pp. 137–160). Waxmann.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology (2nd ed.). Sage.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020762
Kuger, S., Klieme, E., Lüdtke, O., Schiepe-Tiska, A., & Reiss, K. (2017). Mathematikunterricht und Schülerleistung in der Sekundarstufe: Zur Validität von Schülerbefragungen in Schulleistungsstudien [Mathematics instruction and student achievement in secondary education: About the validity of student’s survey and school achievement studies]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 20(2), 61–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-017-0750-6
Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Who is the expert? Construct and criteria validity of student and teacher ratings of instruction. Learning Environments Research, 9(3), 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-006-9015-7
Kunter, M., Brunner, M., Baumert, J., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Blum, W., Jordan, A., & Neubrand, M. (2005). Der Mathematikunterricht der PISA-Schülerinnen und -Schüler: Schulformunterschiede in der Unterrichtsqualität [Mathematics instruction of the PISA-students]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 8(4), 502–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-005-0156-8
Kunter, M., & Voss, T. (2011). Das Modell der Unterrichtsqualität in COACTIV: Eine multikriteriale Analyse [The model of instructional quality in COACTIV: A multi-criterial analysis]. In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften—Ergebnisse des Forschungs programms COACTIV (pp. 85–113). Waxmann.
Lambert, N. M., Mulder, S., & Fincham, F. (2014). Thin slices of infidelity: Determining whether observers can pick out cheaters from a video clip interaction and what tips them off. Personal Relationships, 21(4), 612–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12052
Learnpulse SAS (2020). Screenpresso PRO (Version 1.8.3.0) [Computer software]. https://www.screenpresso.com/de/
Leighton, J. P. (2017). Using Think-Aloud Interviews and Cognitive Labs in Educational Research. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/9780199372904.001.0001
Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., Pauli, C., Drollinger-Vetter, B., Klieme, E., & Reusser, K. (2009). Quality of geometry instruction and its short-term impact on students’ understanding of the Pythagorean Theorem. Learning and Instruction, 19(6), 527–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.11.001
Marzano, R. J., & Marzano, J. S. (2003). The key to classroom management. Educational Leadership, 61(1), 6–13.
McKim, C. A. (2017). The value of mixed methods research: A mixed methods study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607096
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage.
Milli, S., Lieder, F., & Griffiths, T. L. (2021). A rational reinterpretation of dual-process theories. Cognition, 217, 104881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104881
Mugg, J. (2015). Two minded creatures and dual-process theory. Journal of Cognition and Neuroethics, 3(3), 87–112.
Murphy, N. A., & Hall, J. A. (2021). Capturing behavior in small doses: A review of comparative research in evaluating thin slices for behavioral measurement. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 667326. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.667326
Namey, E., Guest, G., Thairu, L., & Johnson, L. (2008). Data reduction techniques for large qualitative data sets. In G. Guest, & K. MacQueen (Eds.), Handbook for Team-Based Qualitative Research, (pp. 137–161). Rowman & Littlefield.
Nesse, R. M. (2005). Natural selection and the regulation of defenses. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(1), 88–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.002
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291
O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
Pennycook, G. (2017). A Perspective on the theoretical foundation of dual process models. In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual Process Theory 2.0 (1st ed., pp. 5–27). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315204550-2
Petko, D., Waldis, M., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2003). Methodologische Überlegungen zur videogestützten Forschung in der Mathematikdidaktik: Ansätze der TIMSS 1999 Video Studie und ihrer schweizerischen Erweiterung [Methodological considerations about video-based research in mathematics didactic]. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 35(6), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02656691
Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09332374
Praetorius, A.-K., Klieme, E., Herbert, B., & Pinger, P. (2018). Generic dimensions of teaching quality: The German framework of three basic dimensions. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 50(3), 407–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0918-4
Praetorius, A.-K., Lenske, G., & Helmke, A. (2012). Observer ratings of instructional quality: Do they fulfill what they promise? Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.03.002
Pretsch, J., Flunger, B., Heckmann, N., & Schmitt, M. (2013). Done in 60 s? Inferring teachers’ subjective well-being from thin slices of nonverbal behavior. Social Psychology of Education, 16(3), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9223-9
Rädiker, S., & Kuckartz, U. (2019). Analyse qualitativer Daten mit MAXQDA: Text, Audio und Video [Analysis of qualitative data with MAXQDA: Text, Audio, and Video]. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22095-2
Rimondini, M., Mazzi, M. A., Busch, I. M., & Bensing, J. (2019). You only have one chance for a first impression! Impact of patients' first impression on the global quality assessment of doctors' communication approach. Health Communication, 34(12), 1413–1422. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1495159
Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 29(8), 1358–1369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618774253
Saldaña, J. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage.
Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Knafl, G. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809334210
Schensual, J. J., LeCompte, M. D., Hess; G. A., Nastasi, B. K., Berg, M. J., Williamson, L., Brecher, J. & Glasser, R. (1999). Using Ethnographic Data: Interventions, Public Programming and Public Policy (Vol. 7). AltaMira.
Schoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed methods research design. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(S2), 107–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22.
Sokolovic, N., Brunsek, A., Rodrigues, M., Borairi, S., Jenkins, J. M., & Perlman, M. (2021). Assessing quality quickly: Validation of the Responsive Interactions for Learning – Educator (RIFL-Ed.) measure. Early Education and Development, 33(6), 1061–1076. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2021.1922851
Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory? In J. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond (1st ed., pp. 55–88). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0003
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–665. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00003435
Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2014). Rationality, intelligence, and the defining features of Type 1 and Type 2 processing. In J. W. Sherman, B. Gawronski & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-Process Theories of the Social Mind (pp. 80–91). The Guilford Press.
Tackett, J. L., Herzhoff, K., Kushner, S. C., & Rule, N. (2015). Thin slices of child personality: Perceptual, situational, and behavioral contributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(1), 150–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000044
Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Editorial: The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906293042
Trautwein, U., Sliwka, A., & Dehmel, A. (2022). Grundlagen für einen wirksamen Unterricht. Reihe wirksamer Unterricht Band 1 [Basics of Effective Teaching. Series on Effective Teaching, Vol. 1]. Institut für Bildungsanalysen Baden-Württemberg.
Van Den Haak, M., De Jong, M., & Jan Schellens, P. (2003). Retrospective vs. concurrent think-aloud protocols: Testing the usability of an online library catalogue. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(5), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/0044929031000
Vinokic, K., Baron, F., Kunter, M., Linberg, A., Begrich, L., & Kuger, S. (2024). Using the thin slices technique to assess interactional quality in early childhood education and care settings. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1368503. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1368503
Visser, D., & Matthews, J. D. L. (2005). The power of non-verbal communication: Predicting job performance by means of thin slices of non-verbal behaviour. South African Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 362–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630503500212
Wagner, W., Göllner, R., Werth, S., Voss, T., Schmitz, B., & Trautwein, U. (2016). Student and teacher ratings of instructional quality: Consistency of ratings over time, agreement, and predictive power. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(5), 705–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000075
White, M., & Ronfeldt, M. (2024). Monitoring rater quality in observational systems: Issues due to unreliable estimates of rater quality. Educational Assessment, 29(2), 124–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2024.2354311
Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17(7), 592-598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01750.x
Wood, T. J. (2014). Exploring the role of first impressions in rater-based assessments. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 19(3), 409–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-013-9453-9
Yan, T., & Tourangeau, R. (2008). Fast times and easy questions: The effects of age, experience and question complexity on web survey response times. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 22(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1331