Assessment purposes and methods used by EFL teachers in secondary schools in Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the purposes and methods of classroom-based assessment (CBA) used by English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers in secondary schools in Jordan. The study data was collected through an online questionnaire that surveyed 54 participants and follow-up semi-structured interviews with three teachers. The questionnaire data were analyzed in SPSS using descriptive statistics, while the interviews were transcribed and coded for recurrent themes. The data showed that teachers use assessment to achieve various goals, including those related to students’ performance, instruction, and administration. The study also found that teachers employed a range of assessment methods of which teacher-made tests was the most common. Additionally, teachers’ choices of assessment methods were found to be influenced by factors such as the National Exam (Tawjihi), students’ proficiency level, as well as their own knowledge of assessment. These findings have implications for prompting awareness among EFL stakeholders in Jordan about the vital role of CBA and the necessity to improve teacher training and professional development programs in order to enhance teachers’ assessment knowledge and practices.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".