Investigating Saudi University EFL Teachers’ Assessment Literacy: Theory and Practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teacher assessment literacy (TAL) is believed to have positive impact on student learning outcomes. Therefore, attempts are made, especially, in advanced educational contexts to increase TAL. In the context of Saudi higher education, available empirical evidence indicates that EFL teacher assessment literacy is replete with loopholes. This mixed-method research investigated Saudi EFL teachers’ construction of assessment tasks, the influence the tasks had on students’ learning and the extent to which teachers’ assessment practices were in alignment with recommended assessment practices. The data were collected through analyzing teachers’ summative assessment tasks and a student survey with both close and open-ended questions. Apart from the participants’ responses to the open-ended questions of the survey, the data went through quantitative data analysis for frequencies and percentages. The findings revealed a serious incongruity between teachers’ assessment tasks and course learning outcomes. For instance, higher order learning outcomes were not assessed at all. Most of the tasks were selected-response questions (SRQs). As confirmed by the survey data, the assessment tasks mainly triggered memorization as a learning strategy. Therefore, suggestions are made that university teachers’ professional development with particular focus on their assessment literacy is placed at the center of higher education policies. Without valid assessment in place, the edifice of Saudi (higher) education system may lose its efficacy.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it