د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المشارك بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B24

2.2.4 Procedure
The assessment for learning and the summative assessment were administered
immediately after each other; otherwise, the scores on the post-test could be influenced by
some intervention other than the feedback. Interaction between students from different groups
was not possible, since all students took the assessments at the same time in a supervised
environment. While taking the assessments, students were allowed to make notes or
calculations on a piece of paper that was provided by the supervisor.
Three weeks before taking the assessments, the teachers informed the students of what
they could expect from the assessment session. Additionally, students were sent information
about the assessment procedures by e-mail. Also, the teachers kindly requested that the
students fill in the questionnaire, which was administered directly after the summative
assessment.
On the day the assessments were administered, students received an e-mail with a
personal QMP log-in account and a password for the CBA. Students were given two-and-ahalf
hours to complete the CBAs and the questionnaire. They had to stay in the computer
room for at least 45 minutes. These restrictions were put in place to make sure all students
would be seriously engaged in the CBA.
2.2.5 Data Analyses
The effects of the feedback in the different conditions were calculated using two-way
ANCOVA, which accounted for the sampling of students from classes (Hypothesis 1). The
proportion correct on the assessment for learning was used as a covariate in order to control
for initial differences between students. The dependent variable in the analysis was the
proportion correct on the summative assessment with 11 items (α = .66) and was the
proportion correct on the assessment for learning with 29 items (α = .87).
The total time (in seconds) spent on reading feedback was logged for each student.
ANOVA was used to investigate if there was a difference between the three groups‘ mean
times spent on feedback (Hypothesis 2). Furthermore, the results of the questionnaire
provided a self-reported measure of time spent reading feedback. This information was used
in addition to the time logs in order to investigate if there were differences between the
feedback-reading behaviours of students within the three groups.
The questionnaires provided information on relevant student characteristics, such as
motivation and attitude towards the CBAs and feedback. A correlation analysis was used in
order to investigate the relationship between student characteristics and time spent reading
feedback (Hypothesis 3).
In order to measure the underlying constructs of the questionnaire, a factor analysis
was performed. The reliability (α) was calculated for each factor measured by the
questionnaire. A one-way ANOVA was used to investigate if there were differences between
the sum scores of the students within the three groups regarding the factors measured by the
questionnaire. Furthermore, post-hoc analyses using the Bonferroni method were performed.
Also, a qualitative analysis was performed on the results of the questionnaires. Students‘
responses to individual items in the questionnaire were analysed using bar charts and cross
tabulations. The dispersion of response patterns was analysed and reported

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني