د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المساعد بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B27

Hypothesis 2: There is no difference between time spent reading feedback between students
who receive immediate or delayed KCR + EF, but students who only receive KR spend less
time reading feedback.
For each student, the total time (in seconds) spent reading the feedback was calculated.
The means for the three groups can be found in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 shows that students in Group 1 spent the most time reading the feedback,
followed by Group 2 and then Group 3. In order to investigate if there was a significant
difference between the groups regarding time spent reading feedback, an ANOVA was
performed. The results show that not all group means were the same: F(2, 147) = 24.40, p <
.001, η2 = .25. Post-hoc analysis shows that the mean time spent reading feedback differed
significantly between Group 1 compared to Groups 2 and 3 (p < .001). The difference
between the means of Groups 2 and 3 was not significant (p = .266). Based on the outcomes
of the ANOVA, Hypothesis 2 was rejected.
Additionally, the questionnaire provided information regarding students‘ feedbackreading
behaviour. Students indicated that they paid more attention to immediate feedback
than to delayed feedback. Students who received immediate KCR + EF were more likely to
read the feedback whenever they guessed an item than were students who received delayed
KCR + EF or KR only. Also, results suggest that students paid more attention to feedback for
incorrectly answered items than for correctly answered items. The results from the qualitative
analysis of the questionnaire supported the outcomes of the analysis of the time logs.
2.3.3 Student Characteristics and Perceived Test Difficulty
The results of the factor analysis showed that the questionnaire measured two factors.
Factor 1 included 11 items (α = .84). Factor 2 included four items (α = .78). Factor 1 included
items that measured student characteristics, namely their attitude towards the assessments and
feedback in CBAs. Factor 2 measured students‘ perceived difficulty of the assessments. Using
PP-plots, it was investigated whether the responses were normally distributed. Small
deviations from normal were found, but no serious deviations were discovered.
The differences between the sum scores of the groups on Factor 1 and 2 were analysed
using ANOVA. The results show that the difference for Factor 1 is significant, F(2, 148) =
7.45, p = .001, η2 = .28. Post-hoc analysis shows that the factor scores differ significantly
between Groups 1 and 3 (p = .001) and between Groups 2 and 3 (p = .035). The difference
between Groups 1 and 2 is not significant (p = .743). These outcomes suggest that students
have a more positive attitude towards feedback in a CBA when they receive KCR + EF rather
than KR only.
No significant differences were found between the three groups for Factor 2, F(2, 148)
= 0.49, p = .613. This means that there were no differences between the three groups
regarding the perceived difficulty of the assessments. Student motivation was about equal for
all groups—the majority of the students agreed that they were motivated to learn the subject.
2.3.4 Relation between Student Characteristics and Time Spent on Feedback
It was expected that students with a more positive attitude and greater study
motivation would spend more time reading feedback (Hypothesis 3).

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني