Malaysian Primary School ESL Teachers’ Questions during Assessment for Learning
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Classroom questioning is a crucial learning and instructional strategy. It has also been regarded as an important aspect of Assessment for Learning (AfL) by researchers. Classroom questioning helps students gain a better appreciation of what they are learning as well as how they are learning. It also helps teachers understand students’ learning progress. This qualitative case study is a part of a larger study on classroom questioning during AfL and it has to be reminded that only a part of the study is presented here which involves two ESL teachers (one teaching Year One and the other teaching Year Two class) and the types of questions they used during AfL. The current study was conducted in a selected primary school in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. To collect data, ten periods of each teacher’s classroom were observed and then interview was conducted with each teacher. Observations and interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed for further analysis. The results of this study showed that the participating teachers were aware of the importance of questioning technique during AfL, however, they asked lower cognitive questions that did not trigger thoughtful reflection. The data also revealed that the teachers in this study formulated questions that at the first sight may seem to be open questions but they expected the students to provide a short-specific answer. Although questions were designed to suit the content of the lesson, it was observed that most of the questions asked by the teachers focused on content, structure and students’ background knowledge and elicited specific, predetermined answers. In short, Most of the questions asked by the teachers in their mixed ability classes were below the students’ Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and did not help the students promote their thinking skills.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».