The Effect of Using Formative Assessment in Distance Learning on the Achievement of Public Schools’ Students in Amman
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
This research aims to know the effect of formative assessment on the achievement of university students in the English language course. The study sample included (196) students intentionally selected from among the first-year students at Al-Isra University in Jordan. These students were divided into two identical groups: one was taken to represent the experimental group, and the other was to represent the control group. The experimental group used formative assessment methods to study the (English Language) course. The students of both groups sat for the final achievement examination. The student's results in the two groups were placed in tables and then treated statistically. It was found that the performance of the experimental group students was better than that of the control group, which indicates the effectiveness of using the formative assessment method in teaching English. In addition, a questionnaire was used with the study sample of students to monitor the attitudes of students and teachers toward the formative assessment. The advanced statistical analysis of students' responses showed their positive attitudes toward this assessment. Then the study concluded with some recommendations to strengthen this type of evaluation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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