Effectiveness of Accommodation in the Assessment of Iranian EFL Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study has investigated the impact of accommodation on test performance as well as achievement scores of Iranian EFL learners at the intermediate level. Initially, 60 female EFL learners of a language school took a version of PET following the standard procedure of the test with no accommodation. Ten days later, the same 60 learners took the second version of PET with some forms of accommodation including: extended time, setting alteration, test illustration, and response presentation. In the second phase, the 60 participants were divided into two 30-member groups of experimental and control and their equality was checked in terms of language proficiency. The experimental group, in addition to its regular lesson plan, underwent accommodated formative assessment. Consequently, as they finished each session, they took quizzes in the next session and received feedback on their progress in terms of four skills. The accommodation activities used during instruction included extended time, setting, presentation and response. The intervention in the control group was the same except for its accommodation. At the end, both groups sat for the achievement test of the language school to exhibit any possible impact of accommodation on their general achievement. On the whole, accommodation was found to be positively effective on the assessment of Iranian female intermediate learners as it contributed to better understanding of the test, reducing test anxiety, and finally an overall better performance on the achievement test.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".