د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المساعد بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B20

2.2 Method
2.2.1 Participants
A group of 152 first-year students (N = 152, 28 women, 124 men, Mage = 20.30 years;
SD = 2.45, age range: 17 to 27 years) in Commercial Economics (CE) at an institute for
higher education participated in this study. The students were selected from nine classes.
These students were subjected to an assessment for learning that preceded a summative
assessment, the latter of which is part of a Marketing course. The sample selected for this
experiment represents 89% of all students who signed up for this period‘s course exam.
The summative assessment was used as a substitute for the regular paper-and-pencil
test and counted for half of the final mark. Additionally, students had to complete a paperand-
pencil test at another point in time, which included a case assignment.
2.2.2 Design
A pre-test/post-test experimental design was used to compare the effects of different
ways of providing feedback. The pre-test consisted of an assessment for learning, including
different types of feedback for the three groups. Students from the nine classes were randomly
assigned to one of the three experimental groups, in which the feedback conditions for the
assessment for learning differed. Within each class, students would experience different
conditions. The first group (immediate KCR + EF) contained 52 students (14 women, 38
men). The second group (delayed KCR + EF) was composed of 48 students (seven women,
41 men). The third group (delayed KR) contained 52 students (seven women, 45 men). In the
next sections, the different types of feedback in the assessment for learning are explained in
detail. The post-test consisted of a summative assessment.
The dependent variable in this study was students‘ scores on the summative
assessment. The score on the assessment for learning was used as a measure of previous
knowledge; this variable was used as a covariate in order to control for initial differences
between students. All students involved in the experiment attended comparable lectures and
had access to the same study materials. It was assumed that after random assignment to the
experimental conditions, no differences would exist between the three groups. Therefore,
possible differences between the groups‘ scores on the summative CBA could be explained by
the different feedback conditions.
2.2.3 Instruments
The instruments used in this experiment were
 an assessment for learning;
 a summative assessment;
 a questionnaire; and
 a time log.

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني