Teachers’ Perceptions on Factors Influence Adoption of Formative Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even though teachers has positive attitude towards formative assessment, their perceptions on factors influence the adoption of formative assessment is crucial to implement various assessment strategies effectively. Therefore, survey conducted on perceptions of primary school teachers in Riyadh province of Saudi Arabia regarding 14 selected factors. By stratified random sampling, data is gathered from the teachers of 15 schools located in the Riyadh province of Saudi Arabia. 210 fully completed questionnaires are received. Interrelated factors also discussed with a sample of 25 teachers. Teachers slightly agreed on all the given factors. However, significant perceptional differences between teachers groups are intervened that mainly attributed to male and female teachers, teachers who attended training and not attended, younger and elder teachers, less tenured and more tenured teachers, and the teachers of different subjects. This study results is noteworthy for understanding the perceptions of teachers on factors influence adoption of formative assessment in primary schools. Factors deliberated in this study are useful to the school management to address the challenges of teachers in formative assessment that would help to minimize the barriers for effective implementation of formative assessment.
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 | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".