د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المساعد بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B26

summative assessment of the students in the nine classes, controlling for achievement on the
assessment for learning. This indicates that some of the differences between classes cannot be
explained by differences on the pre-test.
Hypothesis 1: Students who receive KCR + EF score significantly higher than students who
only receive KR on the summative assessment when controlled for the influence of class and
score on the assessment for learning.
Next, Hypothesis 1 was tested. The aim of this study was not to investigate class
differences but to investigate the effects of different ways of providing feedback. Thus, we
were not so much interested in the class differences but in the group differences. The fact that
the mean proportions correct on both assessments differed between classes is therefore a
disturbing variable. In order to take the class differences into account, a two-way ANCOVA
was performed. Here, the effects of the groups on the proportion correct on the summative
assessment were investigated, taking into account that the means for the classes differed.
Also, the proportions correct on the assessment for learning were included as a covariate.
Since ANCOVA assumes linearity of the regression lines, first it was investigated, using
ANOVA, if there was an interaction effect of groups and classes. The ANOVA showed that
there was no interaction effect (p = .80), which means the assumption of linearity was not
violated. The two-way ANCOVA showed that when the differences between classes were
accounted for, the feedback condition did not significantly affect students‘ achievement on the
summative assessment, F(2, 138) = 0.11, p = .89. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was rejected.
Even though no effects of feedback were found on learning, the questionnaire
provided valuable information on students‘ opinions with regard to the different feedback
conditions. Namely, the qualitative analysis of the questionnaire showed that that the opinion
of students concerning the usefulness of CBAs for learning differed between the three groups.
Students who received immediate or delayed KCR + EF were more positive than those who
received delayed KR. Also, students who received immediate KCR + EF were more positive
than those who received delayed KCR + EF. A comparable pattern in the opinion of students
was observed regarding the degree to which students indicated that they learned from
feedback in a CBA: again, students who received immediate KCR + EF were more positive
than those who received delayed KR. No differences were present between students who
received delayed KCR + EF and delayed KR. These results suggest that students prefer
immediate feedback to delayed feedback. Furthermore, large differences were present among
students‘ responses with regard to the usefulness of the feedback. Students who received KCR
+ EF agreed that that the feedback was useful, while the opinions of students who received
KR were more diverse and more negative.
2.3.2 Time Spent Reading Feedback
It was expected that students who received KCR + EF (Groups 1 and 2) would spend
about the same amount of time reading the feedback in the assessment for learning, given that
the contents of the feedback are identical. The feedback in Group 3 showed only KR, which
does not take a lot of time to examine because of its short length and low complexity.
Therefore, it was expected that students in Group 3 would spend less time reading the
feedback than would students in Groups 1 and 2.

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني