MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3192331548 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v11n2p107

The Effects of Formative Evaluation on Students' Achievement in English for Specific Purposes (A Case Study of the Preparatory Year Students at Umm- Al-Qura University)

2021· article· en· W3192331548 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdul Umar, Abdurrahman Abdulmlik Ameen

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentSummative assessmentMathematics educationMedical educationControl (management)PsychologyPedagogyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research attempts to find out the impact of formative evaluation on Saudi male learners’ achievement in medical English. The study also seeks to find out instructors’ and students' views and attitudes towards formative assessment. The sample of the study involves 98 subjects chosen purposively from among the Preparatory Year students at Umm-Al- Qura University in Saudi Arabia. They were divided into two equal groups; one is intended to act as an experimental and the other is taken as a control group. The experimental group was taught their ESP material following the formative evaluation techniques whereas the control group was taught the same material in accordance with the summative assessment principles. The experimental group instructors were given intensive training courses in Saudi Arabia and abroad on how to use formative evaluation principles in classroom. In the last week of the experimental period which lasted for sixteen weeks, the two groups sat for the final exam which was intended for all pre-medical students in the Preparatory College. The grades of all students in the two groups in the final exam was compared. The experimental group students performance was found to be much higher than that of the control group. Students' and instructors’ attitudes towards formative evaluation were generated through a questionnaire and a series of interviews. Advanced statistical analysis of the responses of the instructors and students has shown their positive attitudes towards this form of evaluation. The study concludes with some recommendations to enhance this type of assessment and to conduct further studies on female students learning different language skills for different purposes. Suggestions to improve formative evaluation practice were also given to make this form of assessment more motivating and more enticing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207