Do Group Exams Support English as an Additional Language Student Learning?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Team-based learning (TBL) has been shown to improve many aspects of student learning, but no previous research has systematically examined the effects of group exams on English as an Additional Language (EAL) students in university classrooms. This study is a small-scale action research examining the role of students’ English language status in their perceptions of and performance in group exams within TBL. The data were collected from 29 students – (13 EAL) and 16 English as a first language (EL1) – attending a third-year university linguistics class in Vancouver, Canada. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used for the data analysis. Results of the study revealed no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of perceptions or performance. Both groups had positive perceptions about group exams and the increase in their performance over the course of the semester was statistically significant. Qualitative results showed that students found group exams helpful for learning and reducing exam anxiety. Students also enjoyed the experience of taking group exams and stated that their attitudes toward the group exams were more positive at the end of the semester.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".