职前与在职英语教师的评估偏好

IF 0.7 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.4018/ijcallt.309098
Marwa F. Hafour
{"title":"职前与在职英语教师的评估偏好","authors":"Marwa F. Hafour","doi":"10.4018/ijcallt.309098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In an authentic class experience, preservice (N = 54) and in-service (N = 65) EFL teachers were assigned digitized formative assessment tasks, and their preferences were assessed using an assessment preferences questionnaire, with both open- and closed-ended questions. Following the pretest-posttest mixed-method design, data were collected and analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Quantitative findings revealed that, though the variety of their preferences increased, both groups had similar preferences after the intervention. Thematic analysis of their responses showed that most preservice and in-service teachers preferred online assessment methods to traditional and formative ones. With respect to the reasons they mentioned for selecting or avoiding a particular method, in-service teachers tended to be more practical and time-oriented than preservice ones, who were more precautious about the intricacies of preparing, responding, and reviewing the assessment task. Both groups also shared a number of emotional reasons and even prioritized them over all the other reasons.","PeriodicalId":43610,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preservice and In-Service EFL Teachers' Assessment Preferences\",\"authors\":\"Marwa F. Hafour\",\"doi\":\"10.4018/ijcallt.309098\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In an authentic class experience, preservice (N = 54) and in-service (N = 65) EFL teachers were assigned digitized formative assessment tasks, and their preferences were assessed using an assessment preferences questionnaire, with both open- and closed-ended questions. Following the pretest-posttest mixed-method design, data were collected and analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Quantitative findings revealed that, though the variety of their preferences increased, both groups had similar preferences after the intervention. Thematic analysis of their responses showed that most preservice and in-service teachers preferred online assessment methods to traditional and formative ones. With respect to the reasons they mentioned for selecting or avoiding a particular method, in-service teachers tended to be more practical and time-oriented than preservice ones, who were more precautious about the intricacies of preparing, responding, and reviewing the assessment task. Both groups also shared a number of emotional reasons and even prioritized them over all the other reasons.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43610,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.309098\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.309098","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在真实的课堂体验中,54名职前教师和65名在职教师被分配了数字化的形成性评估任务,他们的偏好使用评估偏好问卷进行评估,问卷中有开放式和封闭式的问题。采用前测后测混合方法设计,收集数据并进行定性和定量分析。定量研究结果显示,尽管他们偏好的多样性增加了,但干预后两组的偏好相似。对他们的回答进行的专题分析表明,大多数职前教师和在职教师更喜欢在线评估方法,而不是传统的形成性评估方法。就他们提到的选择或避免特定方法的原因而言,在职教师比职前教师更倾向于实践和时间导向,职前教师对准备,回应和审查评估任务的复杂性更加谨慎。这两组人还分享了一些情感上的原因,甚至把它们排在所有其他原因之前。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Preservice and In-Service EFL Teachers' Assessment Preferences
In an authentic class experience, preservice (N = 54) and in-service (N = 65) EFL teachers were assigned digitized formative assessment tasks, and their preferences were assessed using an assessment preferences questionnaire, with both open- and closed-ended questions. Following the pretest-posttest mixed-method design, data were collected and analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Quantitative findings revealed that, though the variety of their preferences increased, both groups had similar preferences after the intervention. Thematic analysis of their responses showed that most preservice and in-service teachers preferred online assessment methods to traditional and formative ones. With respect to the reasons they mentioned for selecting or avoiding a particular method, in-service teachers tended to be more practical and time-oriented than preservice ones, who were more precautious about the intricacies of preparing, responding, and reviewing the assessment task. Both groups also shared a number of emotional reasons and even prioritized them over all the other reasons.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
14.30%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: The mission of the International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT) is to publish research, theory, and conceptually-based papers that address the use and impact of and innovations in education technologies in advancing foreign/second language learning and teaching. This journal expands on the principles, theories, designs, discussion, and implementations of computer-assisted language learning. In addition to original research papers and submissions on theory and concept development and systematic reports of practice, this journal welcomes theory-based CALL-related book and software/application reviews.
期刊最新文献
Whether English Proficiency and English Self-Efficacy Influence the Credibility of ChatGPT-Generated English Content of EMI Students A Bibliometric Analysis on Trends and Patterns in Self-Regulated Language Learning in Mobile-Assisted Learning Environments The Spatial Influence on Vocabulary Acquisition in an Immersive Virtual Reality-Mediated Learning Environment Investigating L2 Grammatical Accuracy in Digital Multimodal Writing Virtual Exchange as a Transformational Third Space for English Language Teacher Education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1