越多并不总是越好:形成性评估策略与阅读成绩之间的非线性关系

IF 2.7 3区教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice Pub Date : 2022-11-02 DOI:10.1080/0969594X.2022.2158304

Yuyang Cai, Min Yang, Juanjuan Yao

{"title":"越多并不总是越好:形成性评估策略与阅读成绩之间的非线性关系","authors":"Yuyang Cai, Min Yang, Juanjuan Yao","doi":"10.1080/0969594X.2022.2158304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study investigated the relationship between formative assessment and reading achievement in Hong Kong, a Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC) society. 4,837 Hong Kong students were surveyed in a nine-item questionnaire that was used as indicator variable of formative assessment strategies. The study used multi-group structural equation modelling (MG-SEM) to examine the effects of formative assessment strategies on reading achievement across low-, medium-, and high-achievers controlling for gender and social economic status (SES) effects. The result showed that after controlling for SES and gender effects, there was significant effect of formative assessment strategies with low- and medium-reading achievers but not with high-reading achievers. Implications are drawn to inform formative assessment research and practice relevant to students’ reading achievement in CHC societies and other educational contexts.","PeriodicalId":51515,"journal":{"name":"Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice","volume":"84 1","pages":"711 - 728"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"More is not always better: the nonlinear relationship between formative assessment strategies and reading achievement\",\"authors\":\"Yuyang Cai, Min Yang, Juanjuan Yao\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0969594X.2022.2158304\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This study investigated the relationship between formative assessment and reading achievement in Hong Kong, a Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC) society. 4,837 Hong Kong students were surveyed in a nine-item questionnaire that was used as indicator variable of formative assessment strategies. The study used multi-group structural equation modelling (MG-SEM) to examine the effects of formative assessment strategies on reading achievement across low-, medium-, and high-achievers controlling for gender and social economic status (SES) effects. The result showed that after controlling for SES and gender effects, there was significant effect of formative assessment strategies with low- and medium-reading achievers but not with high-reading achievers. Implications are drawn to inform formative assessment research and practice relevant to students’ reading achievement in CHC societies and other educational contexts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51515,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice\",\"volume\":\"84 1\",\"pages\":\"711 - 728\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2022.2158304\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2022.2158304","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要:本研究探讨了在香港这个儒家文化社会中形成性评价与阅读成绩的关系。本研究以9项问卷作为形成性评估策略的指标变量，对4,837名香港学生进行了调查。本研究采用多组结构方程模型(MG-SEM)检验了形成性评估策略对低、中、高成就学生阅读成绩的影响，并控制了性别和社会经济地位(SES)的影响。结果表明，在控制了社会经济地位和性别影响后，形成性评价策略对中低阅读成绩生有显著影响，对高阅读成绩生无显著影响。在CHC社团和其他教育背景下，为与学生阅读成绩相关的形成性评估研究和实践提供了启示。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

More is not always better: the nonlinear relationship between formative assessment strategies and reading achievement

ABSTRACT This study investigated the relationship between formative assessment and reading achievement in Hong Kong, a Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC) society. 4,837 Hong Kong students were surveyed in a nine-item questionnaire that was used as indicator variable of formative assessment strategies. The study used multi-group structural equation modelling (MG-SEM) to examine the effects of formative assessment strategies on reading achievement across low-, medium-, and high-achievers controlling for gender and social economic status (SES) effects. The result showed that after controlling for SES and gender effects, there was significant effect of formative assessment strategies with low- and medium-reading achievers but not with high-reading achievers. Implications are drawn to inform formative assessment research and practice relevant to students’ reading achievement in CHC societies and other educational contexts.

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

Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-

CiteScore

5.70

自引率

3.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Recent decades have witnessed significant developments in the field of educational assessment. New approaches to the assessment of student achievement have been complemented by the increasing prominence of educational assessment as a policy issue. In particular, there has been a growth of interest in modes of assessment that promote, as well as measure, standards and quality. These have profound implications for individual learners, institutions and the educational system itself. Assessment in Education provides a focus for scholarly output in the field of assessment. The journal is explicitly international in focus and encourages contributions from a wide range of assessment systems and cultures. The journal''s intention is to explore both commonalities and differences in policy and practice.