د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المساعد بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B25


2.3 Results

2.3.1 Feedback Effects
Two students did not complete both assessments; therefore, data from these students
were not taken into consideration in analysing the feedback effects. The remaining students‘
scores (expressed in proportion correct) on the assessment for learning and the summative
assessment were explored and compared. Proportions correct ranged from .24 to .97 in the
assessment for learning and from .18 to 1.00 in the summative assessment. Table 2.2 shows

the results of the comparisons of the mean proportions correct for the three groups.

it can be concluded that students in all groups scored comparably on
the assessment for learning and the summative assessment. Also, the standard deviations were
large for all groups. Levene‘s test for equality of variances shows that the groups are
homogenous: F(2, 147) = 0.25, p = .775.
At first, students‘ proportions correct on the summative assessment were compared
among the three groups using one-way ANCOVA. The proportion correct on the assessment
for learning was added as a covariate in order to control for previous achievement. The oneway
ANCOVA, F(2, 149) = 13.99, p = .822, η2 = 0.003, demonstrated no significant
differences between the groups regarding the proportions correct on the summative
assessment.
In order to investigate whether the proportions correct on the summative assessment
differed between the classes, proportions correct of classes were compared using one-way
ANOVA. For both the assessment for learning, F(8, 149) = 12.92, p < .001, η2 = .42, and
summative assessment, F(8, 149) = 13.99, p < .001, η2 = .44, it was shown that there were
differences between the classes.
This indicates that within this experiment, there was a difference between the class
means, and this should be accounted for in the analyses. Subsequently, it was investigated
whether the differences on the summative assessment were still present after correcting for the
proportions correct on the summative assessment. The one way ANCOVA, F(8, 149) = 6.42,
p < .001, η2 = .27, demonstrated significant differences between the proportions correct on the

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني