MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410839902 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-03753-7

A phenomenographic study on Chinese EFL teachers’ cognitions of positive and negative educational, social, and psychological consequences of high-stake tests

2025· article· en· W4410839902 on OpenAlexaff
Qingyu Xin, Goudarz Alibakhshi, Reza Javaheri

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenomenographyPsychologyCognitionSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyMathematics educationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the multifaceted cognitions of Chinese English as a Foreign Language(EFL) teachers concerning the positive and negative consequences of high-stakes tests. The prevalence of high-stakes testing in the Chinese educational system underscores the need to understand teachers' perspectives on the potential impacts of such assessments. The main aim is to phenomenographically investigate the various educational, social, and psychological consequences as perceived by EFL teachers. Additionally, the study aims to identify common themes and variations in teachers' cognitions, shedding light on the complexity of their perceptions. The study employs a qualitative phenomenographic approach and involves in-depth interviews with 30 Chinese EFL teachers. Thematic analysis was utilized to categorize and interpret the identified themes related to positive and negative consequences. The findings reveal a range of cognitions among EFL teachers, delineating positive outcomes, such as enhanced educational quality and recognition, alongside negative repercussions, including narrowed curriculum and increased stress. The axial and basic themes comprehensively understand teachers' perspectives on high-stakes testing. The study summarizes the identified themes and highlights their implications for educational practices and policies. Recognizing both positive and negative consequences emphasizes the nuanced impact of high-stakes tests on EFL teachers. The implications extend to curriculum design, teacher training, and the broader educational landscape, stressing the need for a balanced approach to assessment 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.358 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207