SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics / 2017 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1

Giving Class Averages: Is It Worth It?

Adrian LEİS
Matthew WİLSON
Pages
37–48
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The authors suggest the Idio-comparative approach as one to be considered by language teachers in order to assist with building and preserving the confidence of the students participating in the class.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to test a scoring method for regular testing proposed by the authors which provides feedback on test results to each student based upon his or her increases or decreases with the previous test score (hereafter, Idio-comparative marking).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The authors compared the Idio-comparative scoring system with a regular ‘individual result together with class average’ method in an eight-week long quasi-experimental study conducted with 52 first-year Japanese university students.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The authors suggest the Idio-comparative approach as one to be considered by language teachers in order to assist with building and preserving the confidence of the students participating in the class.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this study was to test a scoring method for regular testing proposed by the authors which provides feedback on test results to each student based upon his or her increases or decreases with the previous test score (hereafter, Idio-comparative marking). The authors compared the Idio-comparative scoring system with a regular ‘individual result together with class average’ method in an eight-week long quasi-experimental study conducted with 52 first-year Japanese university students. The authors aimed to gain an understanding of whether there were any salient statistical advantages in giving class averages to students to compare with their own result, thus nullifying the Idio-comparative idea. The study used a Pretest-Posttest design, with the results of an analysis of variance suggesting there to be no statistically significant difference (p = .77) between the Idio-comparative Group and Give-average Group. The authors suggest the Idio-comparative approach as one to be considered by language teachers in order to assist with building and preserving the confidence of the students participating in the class.

🔖

Cite This Article

LEİS, A., WİLSON, M. (2022). Giving Class Averages: Is It Worth It?. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1, 37–48. https://ajindex.com/articles/507062

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Boggiano, A. K., & Pittman, T. S. (1992). Achievement and motivation: A social-developmental perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Covington, M. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Covington, M. (1998).
  4. The will to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Covington, M. (2004). Self-worth theory: Goes to college or do our motivation theories motivate? In D. M. McInerney, S. V. Etten (Eds.) Big theories revisited. (pp. 91-114).
  6. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Crandall, V. C., Katkozsky, W., & Crandall, V. J. (1965). Childrens’ beliefs in their own control of reinforcement in intellectual-academic situations. Child Development, 36, 91-109. http://doi.org/b6ff76
  7. Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 674-685. http://doi.org/c2zrzk
  8. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Dweck, C. S., & Reppucci, N. D. (1973). Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(1), 109-116. http://doi.org/dtz6bq
  9. Faul, F., & Erdfelder, E. (1992). GPOWER: A priori, post-hoc, and compromise power analyses for MS-DOS [Computer program]. Bonn, Germany: Bonn University, Department of Psychology. Hirai, A. (2014). A Review of Four Studies on Measuring Vocabulary Knowledge. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 3 (2), 85_92. doi: 10.7820/vli.v03.2.hirai Hoppe, F. (1930). Untersuchungen zur Handlungs – und Affektpsychologie IV [Psychological studies of action and affect IV: Success and failure]. Erfolg und Misserfolg Psychologische Forschung, 14, 1-63. http://doi.org/fsxt3p
  10. Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112-126. http://doi.org/dbv3tc
  11. Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person versus process praise and criticism: implications for contingent self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 835-847. http://doi.org/cvfs7j
  12. Keefe, J. W. (2007). What is personalization? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(3), 217-223. http://doi.org/b4v2
  13. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London, UK: Longman. Leis, A. (November, 2013). The effects of classroom English on proficiency and self-confidence: A self-worth perspective. Presented at The Tohoku English