Using "assessment for learning" practices with pre-university level students of English as a Second Language: a mixed methods study of teacher and student performance and beliefs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The use of assessment to foster learning has become established in classroom settings in recent years, where it has drawn considerable research interest, as learners have come to take more responsibility for their learning. The Language Testing (LT) community has recently called for more research into advances in alternative assessment practices (Brookhart, 2005; Fox 2009; Harlen & Winter, 2004; McNamara 2001a, 2001b; Pellegrino et al., 2001; Poehner and Lantolf 2005; Rea-Dickins 2004; Shohamy, 2004; Turner, 2009). The present research reports on an exploratory study incorporating treatment and control groups, in which assessment for learning (AFL) principles were applied in two pre-university English for academic purposes (EAP) classes. The study focussed on student learning of a grammatical feature (the use of would and will in contingent use contexts) as a vehicle for investigating AFL. The study has sought to (a) interpret AFL by developing AFL procedures appropriate to a second language (L2) classroom, (b) apply these AFL procedures in an L2 classroom setting, and (c) investigate their effect on learning, and in addition, to investigate for evidence of the assessment bridge (AB), the area of classroom practice linking assessment, teaching, and learning. An AFL methodology for L2 settings was developed for the study in the form of teacher training. The AFL pedagogical materials included computer-assisted language learning (CALL), an online individual, group and teacher-class concept mapping exercises. The data collection instruments included the concept maps produced, classroom observation field notes, transcribed group and class discourse, teacher and student survey questionnaires, and pre- and post-treatment tests to indicate trends. The data were analyzed by mixed methods and the results triangulated. The results found evidence of several instances of the AB and suggest that the application of AFL procedures may have enhanced student learning of the modal usage in question. This study reporting concludes with a call for a research agenda in the LT community for further study of applications of an AFL approach in EAP classroom settings.
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 | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 ».