ESL/EFL Instructors’ Beliefs about Assessment and Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The beliefs of 95 ESL/EFL instructors in Canada, 44 in Hong Kong, and 124 in Beijing about assessment and evaluation were examined with 32 questionnaire items. While the results revealed more similarities than the differences, among the instructors in the three contexts, the beliefs expressed by the instructors in the three contexts were somewhat mixed and, at times, contradictory. While the beliefs that assessment and evaluation were important for instruction and help improve student learning and the actual purposes of and uses of assessment and evaluation held by the instructors were positively related. The instructors’ beliefs about how they conducted their assessments and evaluations, the time required for assessments and evaluations, and their understanding of and preparation for assessment and evaluation were only somewhat related to their actual assessment practices. Nous avons examiné les convictions sur les jugements et les évaluations de 95 instructeurs ELS/ELE au Canada, 44 à Hong Kong, et 124 à Pékin avec un questionnaire de 32 points. Alors que les résultats font apparaître plus de similarités que de différences parmi les instructeurs dans les trois milieux, la confiance exprimée par les instructeurs est plus ou moins mélangée et parfois contradictoire dans ces trois milieux. Pour ces instructeurs, il y a une corelation positive entre leur confiance que les évaluations et les jugements sont importants pour l'enseignement et aident les élèves à améliorer leur apprentissage et leur confiance sur le but réel et l'utilisation des jugements et des évaluations. Mais la conviction sur la façon avec laquelle ils conduisent les jugements et les évaluations, le temps nécessaire pour les conduire et leur compréhension comme leur préparation des jugements et évaluations n'ont qu'une relation assez vague avec leurs pratiques des évaluations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".