Abstract
The primary goal of this research is to compare male and female teachers' perceptions of their assessment efficacy in public & private schools and to assess how well each gender is at fostering student participation in the examination system in public and private schools. The data used in this study was collected from male (n=226) and female (n=112) teachers working in public (n=45) and private (n=45) schools in 9 divisions of Punjab. Instrument of the study was a survey questionnaire adapted from the studies of Dr. Sue A. Rieg of the Indiana University of Pennsylvania and Mr. Richard DLC Gonzales with their permission and modified by the researcher to suit the purpose of the study. The findings show statistically significant difference in male and female teachers on school type (public vs. private) on all measures of self-assessment except for operating conditions, nature of work, and communication.
Key Words
Gender, Public School, Private Schools, Self-Assessment, Interaction With Students
Introduction
The importance of the classroom teacher's role in fostering learning cannot be overstated. The effectiveness or failure of the assessment system greatly depends on the teacher.. Teacher performance strongly affects the assessment system. The teacher is the student's first educational interaction. Any educational programme influences students and teachers. Educator efficacy is a major goal. Each teacher affects their students. Some teachers are more inspiring than others. They seem more effective at connecting with students and helping them learn. Assessment is the belief in one's ability to master events and bring about desired changes. Psychological disorders stem from its absence, thus it makes sense (World Bank. 1996). Assessment is a creative capacity in which intellectual, social, emotional, and interpersonal sub-expertise must be combined and choreographed to meet innumerable objectives, according to many authors (Bandura, 1997. p.3).
Teacher efficacy is assessed in the classroom. This is the concept that a teacher's talents can alter how much students learn, especially difficult or unmotivated ones.
Assessment mediates between capability and deliberate conduct. Perceived appraisal influences action selected, effort expended, endurance and tenacity in the face of setbacks and failures, and level of successes. Bandura (2002) says assessment is key to individual teaching. He says teachers need forward thinking, outcome expectations, self-evaluation, motivation, and self-regulation. In industrialised countries, cognitive education and psychology have researched assessing male and female teachers. In Pakistan's public and private schools, male and female assessment assumptions and their engagement in teaching and learning have gotten little attention. Assessment has a huge impact on classroom management, teaching methods, and student attention.
Personal and teaching effectiveness affect teacher effectiveness. The first component focuses on a teacher's ability to motivate and inspire students to overcome outside pressures like private or public school backgrounds. Second, individual views regarding how male and female instructors' evaluation behaviours effect student learning in public and private schools are transferred (Ashton and Webb, 1986). Strong assessment makes teachers more willing to try new techniques to better serve kids. Guskey (1988) revealed that highly effective teachers were more organised and planned in student assessment. Ineffective teachers hurt students' grades.
Assessment is an important part of public and private Pakistani school systems. Various techniques to measure pupils' academic success in both sectors are ambiguous. Teachers plan, administer, and determine assessment techniques. According to studies, teacher gender also affects student performance. The paper's main contribution is gender-specific school teaching and assessment procedures. Some private schools are single-gender. Teachers are gender-segregated in public schools. Assessment is one tool modern teachers require. Teachers use evaluation tools to determine students' strengths and weaknesses, which helps them build effective lesson plans.
Traditional exams are familiar, which may help teachers stay in touch with students, families, administrators, and other educational stakeholders. Oral questioning, group discussions, peer review, extended writing, flashcards, exit tickets, and interactive quizzes are also used in modern classrooms. How to ensure an exam is accurate, trustworthy, and delivers meaningful, insightful, and actionable information is a key consideration for educators. Pakistan's government has launched several educational projects since independence. Each project aims to improve teaching and education. Disappointingly, there hasn't been much progress in these areas (Rizvi, 2000). Pakistani kids' assessments don't measure their education or competency. Pakistan's educational system promotes pupils who can apply what they've learnt in class, failing those who can't. Standardized testing seems to be the foundation of education. These evaluations and assessments are specific (Khan, 2006). The current study compared public and private elementary school male and female teachers' assessment techniques.
Objectives of the Study
The study was intended to:
? Compare male and female teachers' perceptions of their assessment in public and private schools.
? Assess teacher gender disparity in effective use of assessment strategies for students’ learning outcomes in public and private schools.
? Explore how well each gender is at fostering student participation in the examination system in public and private schools.
Methodology
This was a descriptive study in which quantitative method was used to examine the male and female teacher’s assessment practices in the Punjab Province.
Sample: Convenient sampling procedure was used to collect data. The sample of the study includes full-time male and female teachers (n=450) from Punjab was. The data were gathered from 90 schools of 9 districts (Bahawalpur, D.G. Khan, Faisalabad, Lahore, Multan, Rawalpindi, Sahiwal, and Sargodha), 45 of which are public (school name) and 45 of which are private (schools name). 5 teachers of class 5-8 from private schools and 5 teachers from public schools were selected in each school. A total of 226 responses were received from public schools and 224 responses were received from private schools, data is representing an astounding 50.2 percent public schools and 49.8% private schools. Overall response rate from both schools were 100% because to ensure quality and accuracy of data the authors personally visited and collected data. Teachers were requested to fill the form individually without consultation with other teachers.
Instrument: The questionnaire was adapted from the studies of Dr. Sue A. Rieg of the Indiana University of Pennsylvania and Mr. Richard DLC Gonzales with their permission and modified by the researcher to suit the purpose of the study. 6-8 fundamental assessment components and some demographic questions were included in a questionnaire designed to gauge academicians' levels of self-assessment satisfaction. The components of the assessment are:
? Assessment strategies of male and female teachers
? Students learning outcomes
? Student’s interaction with male and female teachers
? Assessment strategies
? Student participation in the examination system
The school director of the relevant schools granted approval for the study's execution. The questionnaire was distributed to the various schools of 5 teachers of 5-8 grades along with a brief description of it and a copy of the campus director's letter of permission. Additionally, a signed promise of information confidentiality was given to the responders. Teachers who responded to the survey were asked to rate how satisfied or unsatisfied they were with the four different areas of their work. The scale went from 1 to 5, with 1 denoting " very ineffective," 2 denoting " ineffective," 3 denoting " somewhat effective," 4 denoting " effective," and 5 denoting " very effective." There were 56 items in the survey. The demographic trends and assessment satisfaction components of the questionnaire were separated. Age, family status, level (senior teachers and junior teachers), education, gender, and time spent working in education at the current schools were among the demographic questions in the poll. These questions' responses offer a clear picture of the respondent's background. The assessment questionnaire asks about a variety of aspects of assessment, including assessment of male and female teachers, Students learning outcomes, Student’s interaction with male and female teachers, Assessment strategies, and Student participation in the examination system, Interaction with coworkers, supervision, learning opportunities, skill level, and room for advancement. With the aid of the computer algorithm statistical package for social and behavioral sciences (SPSS) version 21, the acquired data was examined.
Findings & Discussion
While the questionnaire was
so long, this research paper is based on the part of questionnaire in which we
asked the respondents either they think that the statement of questions is the
effective how often they use in their assessment so against the same question
the respondents twice one for the effectiveness statement and one for the use
how often use it in their assessment practice so in all tables we will use,
E: Effectiveness
U: Use
As can be seen in Table I,
the responders were split rather evenly between the ganders. Gender in public
schools made up 50.2% of respondents, while private schools made up 49.8%. In
this article, we'll be talking about how academics in the public and private
sectors of education view their own performance differently.
Table 1. Read all tests aloud to some students for assessment.
|
I am
a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E1 |
very
ineffective |
13 |
16 |
.29 |
7.176 |
.127 |
|
ineffective |
17 |
16 |
33 |
|
|
|
somewhat
effective |
46 |
40 |
86 |
|
|
|
effective |
71 |
94 |
165 |
|
|
|
very
effective |
79 |
58 |
137 |
|
|
U1 |
never |
32 |
20 |
52 |
6.010 |
.198 |
|
rarely |
7 |
15 |
22 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
39 |
39 |
78 |
|
|
|
often |
77 |
83 |
160 |
|
|
|
always |
71 |
67 |
138 |
|
|
Table 1
showed results for assessment questions such as (read all tests aloud to some
students for assessment). Two factors were discussed in it; one is
effectiveness, and the other is how often male and female teachers use it in
class during the test. So, the results show that most teachers respond that
this method is very effective. The number of female respondents was 58 for very
effective and male respondents were 79. It can be interpreted that, this method
has a significant effect on students' assessment during class with p-value
0.127. Very few teachers of both genders, 16 females and 13 males, found this
method very ineffective, so it is negligible as compared to very effective. The
male ratio for effectiveness and ineffectiveness 71:17 and female ratio is
94:16. The ratio shows that this method very
effective
for male, effective for female and ineffective for both male and female because
there was no big difference in this ratio. Male use this method more effective
to achieve better performance in class.
According to the data, the
vast majority of educators agree that this approach is used often. Overall,
there were 83 females and 77 males that filled out the survey. 71 males and 67
females are always used this method. Therefore, it is safe to claim that this
technique has a significant impact on how students are evaluated in class with
p-value 0.198. So we conclude that male always use this method in their class
as compared to females. Only 15 female and 7 male educators (a small
percentage) found this strategy to be rare in the classroom.
Table 2. Give
some students extra time to take tests for assessment.
|
I am a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E2 |
very
ineffective |
6 |
4 |
10 |
40.18 |
.404 |
|
ineffective |
12 |
21 |
33 |
|
|
|
somewhat
effective |
109 |
106 |
215 |
|
|
|
effective |
56 |
59 |
115 |
|
|
|
very
effective |
43 |
34 |
77 |
|
|
U2 |
never |
10 |
12 |
22 |
13.91 |
.008 |
|
rarely |
14 |
13 |
27 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
78 |
99 |
177 |
|
|
|
often |
33 |
39 |
112 |
|
|
|
always |
51 |
61 |
112 |
|
|
Almost
equal numbers of male and female teachers 226:224 responded the question. When
the respondents were asked if they think that the idea to “give some students
extra time to take tests for assessment” is effective the male and female
teachers responded differently. If we club the responses against Very
Ineffective and Ineffective the male to female ratio in this area is 18:26.
This shows that more female teachers think that this method is ineffective.
109:106 teachers were undecisive about this method while 99M:9 F ratio is found
when we club the responses against effective and very effective. This shows
that more male teachers find this method effective. X2 value is 4.018a while
P-value is 0.4 which shows a significant relationship between the question being
asked and responses recorded. When the same teachers were asked how often they
use this method in their assessment practice, the responses depict a male to
female ratio of 24:25 while clubbing never and rarely. 78M:99F are the
responses against sometimes while 124M:100F is the ratio against often and
always. This shows that more male teachers use this method in their assessment
practice. This is in line with the responses against the earlier benchmark of
effectiveness where more male teachers found this method effective as well. X2
value is 13.916a while P-value is 0.008 which shows a significant relationship
between the question being asked and responses recorded.
Table 3. Allow
students to choose from different test formats (multiple choice, essay, true or
false, short answer) for assessment
|
I am a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E3 |
very
ineffective |
61 |
82 |
143 |
28.65 |
.070 |
|
ineffective |
25 |
30 |
55 |
|
|
|
somewhat
effective |
41 |
32 |
73 |
|
|
|
effective |
60 |
40 |
100 |
|
|
|
very
effective |
39 |
40 |
79 |
|
|
U3 |
never |
91 |
96 |
187 |
24.05 |
.662 |
|
rarely |
26 |
30 |
56 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
38 |
42 |
80 |
|
|
|
often |
39 |
30 |
69 |
|
|
|
always |
32 |
26 |
58 |
|
|
The ratio of 226:224 teachers, about equal numbers of men and
women, answered the question. When asked whether they thought it was a good
idea to " Allow students to choose from different test formats (multiple
choice, essay, true or false, short answer) for assessment," male and
female teachers had different answers. The male to female ratio in this field
is 86:112 if we combine the results against Very Ineffective and Ineffective.
This demonstrates that this approach is perceived as ineffectual by more female
teachers. Teachers were undecided about this strategy, but when we combine the
results for effective and extremely effective, we find a ratio of 99M: 80F.
This indicates that this approach is successful with more male teachers. There
is a substantial correlation between the question posed and the recorded
responses, as indicated by the X2 value of 28.65a and a P-value of 0.070. The
same instructors' replies to the question of how frequently they utilize this
strategy in their evaluation practices show a male to female ratio of 39:30
while clubbing never and occasionally. Replies to sometimes are38:42, whereas
responses to rarely and always are 58:56. This indicates that more male
teachers than female teachers employ this strategy for assessment. More male
teachers also found this strategy to be effective, according to replies
compared to the old standard of effectiveness. There is a substantial
correlation between the question posed and the recorded responses, as indicated
by the X2 value of 24.05a and a P-value of 0.662.
Table 4. Allow
students to take an oral test in place of a written test.
|
I am a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E4 |
very
ineffective |
60 |
66 |
126 |
18.18 |
.769 |
|
ineffective |
33 |
33 |
66 |
|
|
|
somewhat
effective |
65 |
65 |
130 |
|
|
|
effective |
37 |
38 |
75 |
|
|
|
very
effective |
31 |
22 |
53 |
|
|
U4 |
never |
90 |
80 |
170 |
19.52 |
.745 |
|
rarely |
32 |
32 |
64 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
45 |
50 |
95 |
|
|
|
often |
34 |
30 |
64 |
|
|
|
always |
25 |
32 |
57 |
|
|
Almost
equal numbers of male and female teachers 226:224 responded the question. Male
and female teachers gave different answers when asked whether they thought it
was a good idea to "allow students to take an oral test in place of a
written test." When very ineffective and ineffective responses are
combined, the male to female ratio in this field is 60:66. This indicates that
more female teachers believe this approach to be unproductive. When we group
the replies under effective and highly effective, we get a 68M: 60F ratio,
whereas 65:65 teachers were undecided about this strategy. This demonstrates
that this approach is more popular among male teachers. The association between
the question posed and the recorded responses is significant, as indicated by the
X2
value
of 18.18a and a P-value of 0.769. When
the same teachers were asked how frequently they use this strategy in their
evaluation practice, the responses show a male to female ratio of 34:30 while
clubbing never and rarely. The responses against sometimes are 45M: 50F,
whereas the responses against rarely and always are 57M: 64F. This demonstrates
that male teachers are more likely to adopt this strategy for assessment. This
is consistent with responses to the earlier effectiveness benchmark, when more
male teachers also found this approach to be effective. The association between
the question posed and the recorded responses is substantial, as indicated by
the X2 value of 19.52a and a P-value of 0.745.
Table 5. Allow
students to make up tests that they have missed.
|
I am a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E5 |
very
ineffective |
8 |
11 |
19 |
12.558 |
0.634 |
|
ineffective |
4 |
2 |
6 |
|
|
|
somewhat
effective |
63 |
59 |
122 |
|
|
|
effective |
98 |
89 |
187 |
|
|
|
very
effective |
53 |
63 |
116 |
|
|
U5 |
never |
0 |
0 |
0 |
12.269 |
0.518 |
|
rarely |
28 |
29 |
57 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
67 |
53 |
120 |
|
|
|
often |
79 |
82 |
161 |
|
|
|
always |
52 |
60 |
112 |
|
|
Male and female teachers
responded at a rate of 226:224, or roughly evenly. If the suggestion to
"Allow students to make up tests that they have missed" was
successful, the responses from male and female teachers differed. If the
replies to "extremely ineffective" and "ineffective" are
added together, the male to female ratio in this place is 12:13. This proves
that the majority of female teachers do not believe this strategy to be
beneficial. When we combine the responses for effective and very effective, we
discover a ratio of 151M: 152F, while 63:59 teachers were unsure of this
technique. This proves that this strategy works better at grabbing the
attention of male teachers. When the X2 value, which is 12.558a, is compared to
the P-value, which is 0.634, it can be observed that there is a strong
correlation between the question asked and the recorded responses.
The same instructors' responses when asked how
often they go out to party revealed a male to female ratio of 79:82, with
clubbing often. In contrast to the answers to sometimes and always, which are
119M: 113F, the answers to rarely are 28M: 29F. This illustrates how male
teachers employ this tactic during assessments more frequently than female
ones. This is in line with responses compared to the previous benchmark for
effectiveness, which revealed that more male teachers also believed this
strategy was successful. When the X2 value, which is 12.269a, is compared to
the P-value, which is 0.518, it can be observed that there is a strong
correlation between the question asked and the recorded responses. n between
the question asked and the recorded responses.
Table 6. Explain
in detail what will be on a test before a test is given.
|
I am a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E6 |
very
ineffective |
5 |
20 |
25 |
12.777 |
0.012 |
|
ineffective |
16 |
21 |
37 |
|
|
|
somewhat
effective |
37 |
43 |
80 |
|
|
|
effective |
100 |
86 |
186 |
|
|
|
very
effective |
68 |
54 |
122 |
|
|
U6 |
never |
9 |
20 |
29 |
10.113 |
0.039 |
|
rarely |
28 |
39 |
67 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
48 |
49 |
97 |
|
|
|
often |
95 |
69 |
164 |
|
|
|
always |
46 |
47 |
93 |
|
|
The
ratio of male to female teachers who answered was 226:224, or pretty evenly
split. The question of whether it
was successful to “Explain in detail what will be on a test before a test is
given" produced a range of responses from both male and female teachers.
When the data for "very ineffective" and "ineffective" are
combined, we discover that the ratio of men to women in this setting is 21:41.
This demonstrates how this tactic is useless in the eyes of the vast majority
of female teachers. We get a ratio of 168M: 140F when we combine the responses
for effective and highly effective, whereas 37:43 teachers had somewhat
effective about this approach. This implies that this tactic is more effective
at grabbing the attention of male teachers. It is feasible to see that there is
a strong correlation between the given question and the recorded responses by
comparing the X2 value, which is 12.777a, to the P-value, which is 0.012. When asked about their partying habits, the
same instructors indicated a male to female ratio of 57:69, with clubbing
occurring never or only sometimes. The answer to always asked questions is 46M:
47F, whereas the answer to both often and rarely asked questions is 123M: 108F.
This demonstrates how male teachers regularly use this strategy when giving
tests. This is consistent with feedback from the last effectiveness test, which
showed that more male teachers also thought this tactic worked. There is a
significant correlation between the question posed and the recorded responses,
as seen by the X2 10,133a value and 0.039P-valu
Table 7. Allow
students to retake another form of a test if they are not satisfied with their
grades
|
I am a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E7 |
very
ineffective |
25 |
14 |
39 |
9.165 |
0.057 |
|
ineffective |
61 |
59 |
120 |
|
|
|
somewhat
effective |
79 |
65 |
144 |
|
|
|
effective |
35 |
54 |
89 |
|
|
|
very
effective |
26 |
32 |
58 |
|
|
U7 |
never |
60 |
46 |
106 |
17.081 |
0.02 |
|
rarely |
58 |
37 |
95 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
61 |
57 |
118 |
|
|
|
often |
24 |
42 |
66 |
|
|
|
always |
23 |
42 |
65 |
|
|
The number of responses from
male and female teachers was about equal, at a ratio of 226:224. Teachers, both
male and female, had a range of responses when asked whether the idea of
"allowing kids to take an oral test in place of a written test" was
successful. The ratio of men to women in this location is 86:73 when the
findings for "very ineffective" and "ineffective" are
combined. This demonstrates how this tactic, in the opinion of the vast
majority of female teachers, is counterproductive. Teachers had doubts about
this method, but when we combine the responses for effective and very
effective, we have a ratio of 61M: 86F. This shows that this approach has a
greater ability to pique the interest of male instructors. There is a strong
correlation between the provided question and the recorded responses, as can be
shown by comparing the X2 value,
which is 9.165a, to the
P-value, which is 0.057.
When asked about their partying preferences,
the same teachers revealed a 118:83 male to female split, with clubbing
occurring either never or very rarely. The response to 47M: 84F is both often
and always, but the response to 61M: 57F is sometimes. This demonstrates how
more commonly this strategy is used while giving tests by male teachers. This
is consistent with replies to the previous effectiveness benchmark, which
showed that a greater proportion of male teachers also thought this tactic was
effective. It can be seen that there is a significant correlation between the
question posed and the recorded responses when comparing the X2 value, which is
17.081a, to the P-value, which is 0.12.
Table 8. Provide study skills lessons for some
students to learn how to study for tests.
|
I am a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E8 |
very
ineffective |
2 |
2 |
4 |
15.79 |
0.965 |
|
ineffective |
10 |
8 |
18 |
|
|
|
somewhat
effective |
10 |
10 |
20 |
|
|
|
effective |
86 |
80 |
166 |
|
|
|
very
effective |
118 |
124 |
242 |
|
|
U8 |
never |
0 |
0 |
0 |
14.48 |
0.930 |
|
rarely |
8 |
9 |
17 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
19 |
19 |
38 |
|
|
|
often |
77 |
70 |
147 |
|
|
|
always |
122 |
126 |
248 |
|
|
There were pretty similar numbers of answers from male and female
teachers, 226:224. When asked if the concept of "allowing youngsters to
take an oral test in place of a written test" was successful, teachers
both male and female had a variety of answers. When the results for "extremely
ineffective" and "ineffective" are combined, the ratio of males
to women in this facility is 12:10. This indicates how this strategy is
ineffective in the eyes of the vast majority of female teachers. Teachers had
reservations about this approach, but the ratio is 204M: 204F when we aggregate
the replies for effective and highly effective. This demonstrates that this
strategy is more effective in grabbing the attention of both male and female
instructors equally. Comparing the X2 value, which is 15.79a, to the P-value,
which is 0.965, reveals that there is a significant association between the
given question and the recorded responses. The same teachers revealed a 27:28
male to female divide when asked about their partying inclinations, with
clubbing occurring either sometimes or rarely. The answer to 199M: 196F for
often and always. This indicates how this technique is more frequently utilized
by male teachers while administering tests. This is in line with responses to
the last effectiveness benchmark, which revealed that more male teachers
believed this strategy was successful. By comparing the X2 value, which is
14.48a, to the P-value, which is 0.930, it can be observed that there is a
substantial correlation between the given question and the recorded responses.
Table 9. Provide
time in class to study for tests and/or to work on performance assessments.
|
I am a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E9 |
very ineffective |
0 |
0 |
0 |
19.25 |
0.588 |
|
ineffective |
4 |
4 |
8 |
|
|
|
somewhat effective |
23 |
29 |
52 |
|
|
|
effective |
61 |
68 |
129 |
|
|
|
very effective |
138 |
123 |
261 |
|
|
U9 |
never |
0 |
0 |
0 |
13.52 |
0.318 |
|
rarely |
6 |
6 |
12 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
35 |
26 |
61 |
|
|
|
often |
50 |
65 |
115 |
|
|
|
always |
135 |
127 |
262 |
|
|
The
ratio of 226:224 teachers, about equally split between male and female,
answered the question.
When asked if they thought it was a beneficial idea to "allow
some students more time to take tests for evaluation," male and female
teachers gave different answers. When very ineffective and ineffective
responses are combined, the male to female ratio in this field is 27:33. This
indicates that more female teachers believe this approach to be unproductive.
When we combine the replies for effective and highly effective, we find a 199M:
191F ratio, whereas 23:29 teachers were undecided about this strategy. This
demonstrates that this approach is more popular among male teachers. The
association
between
the question posed and the recorded responses is significant, as indicated by
the X2 value of 19.25a and a P-value of 0.588.
Whenever asked how frequently they use this
strategy in their evaluation practice, the same teachers reported a male to
female ratio of 50:65 while clubbing. The responses against sometimes are 35M:
26F, while the responses against rarely and always are 141M: 192F. This
demonstrates that female teachers are more likely to adopt this strategy for
assessment. This is consistent with responses to the earlier effectiveness
benchmark, when more male teachers also found this approach to be effective.
The X2 value of 13.52a and the P-value of 0.318 shows that there is a strong
link between the question asked and the answers that were written down.
Table 10. Provide
study guides to help students study.
|
I am a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E10 |
very
ineffective |
14 |
22 |
36 |
7.265 |
0.123 |
|
ineffective |
23 |
32 |
55 |
|
|
|
somewhat
effective |
85 |
91 |
176 |
|
|
|
effective |
49 |
41 |
90 |
|
|
|
very
effective |
55 |
38 |
93 |
|
|
U10 |
never |
38 |
30 |
68 |
11.755 |
0.019 |
|
rarely |
25 |
50 |
75 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
91 |
71 |
162 |
|
|
|
often |
24 |
25 |
49 |
|
|
|
always |
48 |
48 |
96 |
|
|
The
ratio of 226:224 teachers, about equal distribution of male and female
teachers, provided the solution. Male
and female instructors' responses to the question of whether they believed it
was a good idea to “Provide study guides to help students study" were
different. The male to female ratio in this field is 37:57when combining
extremely inefficient and ineffective responses. This shows that more female
teachers perceive this perspective to be ineffective. When we combine the
responses for effective and extremely effective, we discover a ratio of 104M:
79F, while 85:91 teachers were unsure of this tactic. This suggests that male
teachers prefer this strategy more. The X2 value of 7.265a and a P-value of
0.123 demonstrate that there is a substantial relationship between the given
question and the recorded responses. The same teachers indicated a male to
female ratio of 24:25 while clubbing when asked how often they employ this
technique in their evaluation practices. Responses are 63M: 80F for rarely and never,
139M: 119F for sometimes and always, and 0M:0F for never. This shows that male
educators are more likely to use this kind of evaluation. This is in line with
feedback from the earlier effectiveness test, when more male teachers also
thought this strategy worked well. The X2 value of 11.755a and the P-value of
0.019 demonstrate that the question posed and the recorded responses have a
significant relationship.
Table 11. Provide opportunities for students 1 2 3
4 5 to construct portfolios.
|
I am a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E11 |
very
ineffective |
10 |
17 |
27 |
14.787a |
0.310 |
|
ineffective |
14 |
8 |
22 |
|
|
|
somewhat
effective |
28 |
21 |
49 |
|
|
|
effective |
95 |
92 |
187 |
|
|
|
very
effective |
79 |
86 |
165 |
|
|
U11 |
never |
25 |
20 |
45 |
13.677 |
0.597 |
|
rarely |
22 |
22 |
44 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
21 |
28 |
49 |
|
|
|
often |
78 |
74 |
152 |
|
|
|
always |
80 |
78 |
158 |
|
|
The
answer came from the teachers, who were divided 226:224, pretty much equally
between men and women. Male and female teachers differed in their responses to
the question of whether they thought it would be advantageous to "give
some pupils additional time to take tests for evaluation." In this field,
the male to female ratio is 24:25 when very ineffective and ineffective replies
are combined. This suggests that this strategy is not effective with more
female teachers. There is a ratio of 174M: 178F when we combine the responses
for effective and highly effective, while 28:21 teachers were unsure of this
approach. This proves that teachers who are female are more likely to use this
strategy. The value of X2 14.787a and a P-value of 0.310 shows that there was a
meaningful correlation between the asked question and the recorded answers. The
same teachers noted a male to female ratio of 78:74 while clubbing when asked
how often they employ this method in their evaluation practice. Responses to
rarely and never are 47:42, whereas these to frequently and always are 101:106.
This shows that men are more likely than women to use this appraisal approach.
This is in line with replies to the prior effectiveness test, when more male
teachers also felt that this strategy was successful. There is a significant
correlation between the question posed and the recorded replies, as shown by
the X2 value of 13.677a and the P-value of 0.597 for the study.
Table 12. Provide the option of either taking written tests
or constructing projects.
|
I am a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E12 |
very
ineffective |
38 |
29 |
67 |
9.259 |
0.262 |
|
ineffective |
42 |
52 |
94 |
|
|
|
somewhat
effective |
47 |
59 |
106 |
|
|
|
effective |
63 |
50 |
113 |
|
|
|
very
effective |
31 |
28 |
59 |
|
|
U12 |
never |
70 |
46 |
116 |
8.305 |
0.081 |
|
rarely |
26 |
39 |
65 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
74 |
74 |
148 |
|
|
|
often |
35 |
39 |
74 |
|
|
|
always |
21 |
26 |
47 |
|
|
The ratio of 226:224
teachers, about equally split between male and female, answered the
question. When asked if they thought it
was a beneficial idea to "Provide the option of either taking written
tests or constructing projects," male and female teachers gave different
answers. When very ineffective and ineffective responses are combined, the male
to female ratio in this field is 80:81. This indicates that more female
teachers believe this approach to be unproductive. When we combine the replies
for effective and highly effective, we find a 94M: 78F ratio, whereas 47:59
teachers were undecided about this strategy. This demonstrates that this
approach is more popular among male teachers. The association between the
question posed and the recorded responses is significant, as indicated by the
X2 value of 9.259a and a P-value of 0.202.
Whenever asked how often they use this strategy
in their evaluation practice, the same teachers reported a male to female ratio
of 35:39 while clubbing. The responses against sometimes and always are 95M:
100F, while the responses against rarely and never are 97M: 85F. This
demonstrates that female teachers are more likely to adopt this strategy for
assessment. This is consistent with responses to the earlier effectiveness
benchmark, when more male teachers also found this approach to be effective.
The X2 value of 8.305a and the P-value of 0.081 shows that there is a strong
link between the question asked and the answers that were written down.
Table 13. Provide
the option of either taking written tests or giving oral reports.
|
I am a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E13 |
very
ineffective |
55 |
48 |
103 |
7.655 |
0.957 |
|
ineffective |
45 |
46 |
91 |
|
|
|
somewhat
effective |
52 |
54 |
106 |
|
|
|
effective |
34 |
37 |
71 |
|
|
|
very
effective |
40 |
39 |
79 |
|
|
U13 |
never |
74 |
60 |
134 |
8.904 |
0.206 |
|
rarely |
52 |
51 |
103 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
46 |
67 |
113 |
|
|
|
often |
37 |
31 |
68 |
|
|
|
always |
15 |
15 |
30 |
|
|
The
ratio of 226:224 teachers, about equally split between male and female,
answered the question. When asked if
they thought it was a beneficial idea to "Provide the option of either
taking written tests or giving oral reports," male and female teachers gave
different answers. When very ineffective and ineffective responses are
combined, the male to female ratio in this field is 100:94. This indicates that
more female teachers believe this approach to be unproductive. When we combine
the replies for effective and highly effective, we find a 74M: 76F ratio,
whereas 52:54 teachers were undecided about this strategy. This demonstrates
that this approach is more popular among female teachers. The association
between the question posed and the recorded responses is significant, as
indicated by the X2 value of 7.655a and a P-value of 0.957. Whenever asked how often they use this
strategy in their evaluation practice, the same teachers reported a male to
female ratio of 37:31 while clubbing. This demonstrates that male teachers are
more likely to adopt this strategy for assessment. The responses against
sometimes and always are 61M: 82F, while the responses against rarely and never
are 126M: 111F. This is consistent with responses to the earlier effectiveness
benchmark, when more male teachers also found this approach to be effective.
The X2 value of 8.904a and the P-value of 0.206 shows that there is a strong
link between the question asked and the answers that were written down.
Table 14. Allow students to take tests in pairs or in
small groups.
|
I am a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E14 |
very
ineffective |
78 |
65 |
143 |
6.091 |
0.192 |
|
ineffective |
30 |
46 |
76 |
|
|
|
somewhat
effective |
37 |
39 |
76 |
|
|
|
effective |
40 |
43 |
83 |
|
|
|
very
effective |
41 |
31 |
72 |
|
|
U14 |
never |
104 |
92 |
196 |
8.821 |
0.588 |
|
rarely |
32 |
44 |
76 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
30 |
31 |
61 |
|
|
|
often |
34 |
34 |
68 |
|
|
|
always |
26 |
23 |
49 |
|
|
The
solution was found in the ratio of 226:224 teachers, which shows that there are
about the same number of male and female teachers.
The opinions of male and female teachers were different in response to the
question of whether it was advantageous to "allow students to take tests
in pairs or in small groups." The male to female ratio in this field is
108:111 when combining extremely inefficient and ineffective responses. This
shows that more female teachers perceive this perspective to be ineffective.
Combining the responses for effective and highly effective, we have a 81M: 74F
ratio, while 37:39 teachers were unsure about this approach. This suggests that
female teachers prefer this strategy more. The X2 value of 6.091a and a P-value
of 0.192 showed that there is a meaningful correlation between the given
question and the recorded responses.
The same teachers reported a male to female
ratio
of 34:34 when clubbing when questioned about how often they utilize this method
in their evaluation practice. This shows that male and female educators are
equally likely to use this kind of evaluation. Reactions against rarely and
never are 136M: 136F, but responses against always and sometimes are 56M: 57F.
This is in line with feedback from the earlier effectiveness benchmark, when
almost both male and female teachers also thought this strategy worked well.
There is a significant correlation between the question posed and the recorded
replies, as indicated by the X2 value of 8.821a and the P-value of 0.588.
Table 15. Give
practice tests/quizzes using the same format as the actual test/quiz.
|
I am a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E15 |
very
ineffective |
24 |
18 |
42 |
8.477 |
0.831 |
|
ineffective |
6 |
4 |
10 |
|
|
|
somewhat
effective |
42 |
45 |
87 |
|
|
|
effective |
65 |
69 |
134 |
|
|
|
very
effective |
89 |
88 |
177 |
|
|
U15 |
never |
16 |
26 |
42 |
7.111 |
0.276 |
|
rarely |
26 |
18 |
44 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
40 |
32 |
72 |
|
|
|
often |
74 |
71 |
145 |
|
|
|
always |
70 |
77 |
147 |
|
|
The answer
came from the teachers, who were divided 226:224, exactly evenly between men
and women. Male and female teachers
provided contrasting responses to the question of whether they believed it
would be advantageous to "offer the option of either preparing written
reports or taking written examinations." When very inefficient and ineffective
responses are combined, the ratio of men to women is 30:22. This suggests that
this strategy is not effective with more male teachers. When we combine the
responses for effective and highly effective, we discover a ratio of 154M:
157F, while 42:45 teachers were unsure about this tactic. It is clear from this
that female instructors prefer this strategy. The X2 value of 8.477a and a
P-value of 0.831
demonstrate
the significance of the association between the given question and the recorded
answers.
The same teachers stated that a
74:71 male to female ratio was observed while clubbing when asked how
frequently they used this method in their evaluation practice. This shows that
men are more likely than women to use this appraisal approach. Responses are 42M:
44F for occasionally and never, and 110M: 109F for always and sometimes. This
is in line with replies to the earlier effectiveness benchmark, when more male
teachers also felt that this strategy was successful. The X2 value of 7.111a
and the P-value of 0.276 demonstrate that the question posed and the recorded
responses have a significant relationship.
Table 16. Give
frequent tests/quizzes that are not graded to check for student understanding.
|
I am a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E16 |
very
ineffective |
14 |
12 |
26 |
7.186 |
0.269 |
|
ineffective |
2 |
4 |
6 |
|
|
|
somewhat
effective |
16 |
29 |
45 |
|
|
|
effective |
76 |
69 |
145 |
|
|
|
very
effective |
118 |
110 |
228 |
|
|
U16 |
never |
16 |
14 |
30 |
9.779 |
0.044 |
|
rarely |
2 |
11 |
13 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
18 |
14 |
32 |
|
|
|
often |
65 |
79 |
144 |
|
|
|
always |
125 |
106 |
231 |
|
|
The
response rate was 226:224, nearly evenly split between male and female
teachers. When asked if they thought it was a good idea to " Give frequent
tests/quizzes that are not graded to check for student understanding,"
male and female teachers gave different answers. When Very Ineffective and
Ineffective responses are combined, the male to female ratio in this field is
16:16. This indicates that equally male and female teachers believe this
approach to be unproductive. When we combine the replies for effective and
highly effective, we find a 194M: 179F ratio, whereas 16:29 teachers were
undecided about this strategy. This demonstrates that this approach is more
popular among male teachers. The association between the question posed and the
recorded responses is significant, as indicated by the X2 value of 7.186a and
P-value of 0.269. The responses show a male to female ratio of 65:79 while
clubbing never and rarely when the same teachers were questioned how often they
utilize this strategy in their evaluation practice. The responses against
rarely and never are 18M: 25F, while the responses against frequently and
always are 143M: 185F. This demonstrates that female teachers are more likely
to adopt this strategy for assessment. This is consistent with replies to the
earlier effectiveness benchmark, when more male teachers also found this
approach to be effective. The X2 value is 9.779a and the P-value is 0.044,
indicating a substantial correlation between the question posed and the
recorded responses.
Table 17. Provide
opportunities for students to self-assess their work.
|
I am a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E17 |
very
ineffective |
30 |
27 |
57 |
12.202 |
0.669 |
|
ineffective |
19 |
26 |
45 |
|
|
|
somewhat
effective |
65 |
71 |
136 |
|
|
|
effective |
65 |
59 |
124 |
|
|
|
very
effective |
47 |
41 |
88 |
|
|
U17 |
never |
50 |
56 |
106 |
13.546 |
0.471 |
|
rarely |
44 |
35 |
79 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
66 |
58 |
124 |
|
|
|
often |
32 |
43 |
75 |
|
|
|
always |
34 |
32 |
66 |
|
|
The ratio of respondents was
226:224, nearly equally balanced between male and female teachers.
Teachers
who are male and female replied differently when asked whether they believed it
was a good idea to "Provide opportunities for students to self-assess
their work." The gender split in this field is 49:53 when we combine the
replies against Very Ineffective and Ineffective. This demonstrates that this
approach is not effective in the eyes of most female teachers. When we combine
the replies for effective and highly effective, we find that 112: 100 teachers
were undecided about this strategy, while a 65M: 71F ratio was sometimes
discovered. This demonstrates that this approach is more effective in engaging
male teachers. There is a substantial correlation between the question posed
and the recorded responses, as indicated by the X2 value of 12.202a and a
P-value of 0.669.
When the same teachers were asked how
frequently they party, the answers showed a male to female ratio of 94:91 while
clubbing never and rarely. Responses to often are 32M: 43F, while responses to
frequently and always are 100M: 90F. This demonstrates how this strategy is
more frequently used by male teachers while conducting assessments. More male
teachers also found this strategy to be effective, according to replies
compared to the old standard of effectiveness. A substantial association
between the question posed and the recorded responses may be seen by comparing
the X2 value, which is 13.546a, to the P-value, which is 0.471.
Table 18. Give
students at least one week's notice before tests and performance assessments are
due.
|
I am a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E18 |
very
ineffective |
13 |
14 |
27 |
7.442 |
0.114 |
|
ineffective |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
|
|
somewhat
effective |
37 |
35 |
72 |
|
|
|
effective |
69 |
91 |
160 |
|
|
|
very
effective |
105 |
84 |
189 |
|
|
U18 |
never |
17 |
18 |
35 |
8.471 |
0.689 |
|
rarely |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
38 |
37 |
75 |
|
|
|
often |
64 |
74 |
138 |
|
|
|
always |
107 |
95 |
202 |
|
|
The
answer came from the teachers, who were split 226:224, or exactly halfway
between men and women. In
response to the query of whether it would be advantageous to "give the
option of either writing written reports or taking written examinations,"
male and female teachers gave divergent answers. The ratio of males to females
is 15:14 when particularly inefficient and poor responses are combined. This
implies that this tactic is ineffective when there are more male teachers. When
we add together the responses for both effective and extremely effective, we
find a ratio of 174M: 175F, whereas 37:35 teachers were unsure of this
strategy. This indicates that female instructors favor this tactic. The
correlation between the supplied question and the recorded answers is
significant, as shown by the X2 value of 7.442a and a P-value of 0.114.
When asked how frequently they employed this strategy in their evaluation
practice, the same teachers responded that a 64:74 male to female ratio was
seen when clubbing. This demonstrates that this appraisal style is used by
females more frequently than by males. The answers are 17M: 18F for never, and
145M: 132F for consistently and sometimes. This is consistent with feedback
from the earlier effectiveness benchmark, when more male teachers concurred
that the tactic was effective. The X2 value of 8.471a and the P-value of 0.689
showed that there is a strong correlation between the given question and the
recorded responses.
Table 19. Provide feedback
within three days after a test or performance assessment is given.
|
I am a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E19 |
very
ineffective |
5 |
8 |
13 |
12.115 |
0.715 |
|
ineffective |
6 |
7 |
13 |
|
|
|
somewhat
effective |
26 |
20 |
46 |
|
|
|
effective |
69 |
62 |
131 |
|
|
|
very
effective |
120 |
127 |
247 |
|
|
U19 |
never |
9 |
15 |
24 |
8.477 |
0.076 |
|
rarely |
10 |
6 |
16 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
49 |
29 |
78 |
|
|
|
often |
44 |
51 |
95 |
|
|
|
always |
114 |
123 |
237 |
|
|
The answer to the question was 226:224, or roughly equal numbers of
male and female teachers. When asked if
they thought it would be good to let students “Provide feedback within three
days after a test or performance assessment is given”, male and female teachers
gave different answers. The male to female ratio in this field is 32:27 when
highly inefficient and ineffective replies are combined. This suggests that
more male educators think this strategy is ineffective. In contrast to the
26:20 teachers who were unsure about this approach, we obtain a ratio of 189M:
189F when we combine the responses for effective and extremely effective. This
suggests that both male and female academics are likely to use this strategy.
The X2 value of 12.115a and a P-value of 0.715 showed that there is a
substantial correlation between the given question and the recorded
responses. The same teachers stated a
44:51 male to female ratio when asked how often they employ this method in their
evaluation practice. This shows that male teachers are more likely to use this
assessment approach. In contrast to the responses for rarely and never, which
are 19M: 21F, the responses for sometimes and always are 163M: 152F. This is in
line with feedback from the earlier effectiveness benchmark, when a greater
proportion of male teachers also found this strategy to be successful. The X2
value of 8.477a and the P-value of 0.076 demonstrate that there is a
significant correlation between the question posed and the recorded responses.
Table 20. Make
sure students understand why their answers on tests or products for performance
assessments are incorrect.
|
I am a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E20 |
very
ineffective |
7 |
2 |
9 |
9.212 |
0.056 |
|
ineffective |
0 |
4 |
4 |
|
|
|
somewhat
effective |
10 |
17 |
27 |
|
|
|
effective |
43 |
47 |
90 |
|
|
|
very
effective |
166 |
154 |
320 |
|
|
U20 |
never |
7 |
2 |
9 |
6.606 |
0.158 |
|
rarely |
2 |
6 |
8 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
18 |
11 |
29 |
|
|
|
often |
58 |
62 |
120 |
|
|
|
always |
141 |
143 |
284 |
|
|
The
teachers, who were approximately divided 226:224 between males and females,
provided the solution. When
asked whether it would be useful to " Make sure students understand why
their answers on tests or products for performance assessments are
incorrect," male and female teachers responded in different ways. There
are 7:6 more men than women when exceedingly ineffective and ineffective
reactions are combined. This shows that this tactic does not work well when
there are more male teachers. Combining the replies for effective and very
effective, we find a ratio of 209M: 201F, while 10:17 teachers were unsure of
this strategy. The conclusion drawn from this is that female teachers like this
tactic. The significance of the association between the
provided
question and the recorded answers is shown by the X2 value of 9.212a and a
P-value of 0.056. When asked how often they
used this strategy in their evaluation practice, the same teachers reported
that a 58:62 male to female ratio was seen when clubbing. This demonstrates
that this appraisal style is more frequently used by females than by males. For
rarely and never, the responses are 9M: 8F, while for always and sometimes,
they are 159M: 154F. This is consistent with responses to the earlier
effectiveness benchmark, where a greater number of male teachers also thought
that this tactic was effective. The association between the given question and
the recorded responses is shown to be significant by the X2 value of 6.606a and
the P-value of 0.158.
Table 21. Give
students the opportunity to correct mistakes on tests or improve performance
assessments.
|
I am a |
Total |
Chi-square |
p-value |
||
male |
female |
|
|
|
||
E21 |
very
ineffective |
43 |
33 |
76 |
9.087 |
0.394 |
|
ineffective |
4 |
8 |
12 |
|
|
|
somewhat
effective |
38 |
41 |
79 |
|
|
|
effective |
57 |
48 |
105 |
|
|
|
very
effective |
84 |
94 |
178 |
|
|
U21 |
never |
39 |
28 |
67 |
12.553 |
0.635 |
|
rarely |
21 |
20 |
41 |
|
|
|
sometimes |
51 |
49 |
100 |
|
|
|
often |
53 |
56 |
109 |
|
|
|
always |
62 |
71 |
133 |
|
|
The
teachers, evenly divided 226:224 between men and women, provided the solution. Whether it would be advantageous to "give
students the opportunity to correct mistakes on tests or improve performance
assessments" was a question that received different answers from male and
female teachers. The male to female ratio is 47:41 when extremely ineffective
and ineffective are combined. This indicates that using this tactic with more
male teachers would not be successful. When we combine the replies for
effective and extremely effective, we find a ratio of 141M: 127F, whereas 38:41
teachers were unsure about this strategy. Clearly, female instructors favor
this tactic based on this. The correlation between the provided question and
the recorded answers is significant, as shown by the X2 value of 9.087a and a
P-value of 0.394. When asked how frequently they employed this technique in
their evaluation practice, the same teachers responded that a 53:56 male to
female ratio was seen when clubbing. As a result, it can be seen that female
are more prone than male to employ this appraisal style. For rarely and never,
the responses are 60M: 48F, while for constantly and occasionally, 113M: 127F.
This agrees with responses to the earlier effectiveness benchmark, when more
female teachers also thought that this tactic worked. There is a substantial
correlation between the given question and the recorded responses, as shown by
the X2 value of 12.553a and the P-value of 0.635.
Conclusions
The following are conclusions based on the findings of the study.
Assessment in education is crucial because it serves as the foundation for academic progress. Inadequate assessment practices in education may be one of the primary causes of stagnation in monitoring students’ performance and decision making for their actual level of performance. First, the number of people who wanted to become teachers and went to public schools was higher than the number of people who wanted to become teachers and went to private schools. Secondly, Prospective teachers attending both public and private schools exhibited an equally high level of professionalism. Third, aspiring female teachers enrolling in public vs. private institutions differ significantly in their level of assessment. Women and men enrolling in public and private schools to become teachers have vastly different levels of professional approach. Male teachers have significant experience in the classroom regarding this assessment for the success of students. Female teachers found this assessment strategies’ ineffective during their classes for the success of students so they must be need to improved their performance for assessment.
Policy Recommendations
Based on this analysis, we propose the following policy changes:
? To improve the results of female teacher’s assessment strategies of private and public schools, the government must first conduct adequate mechanisms of training for female teachers.
? The government is also in charge of keeping an eye on how female teachers work and setting clear rules for how they should be run.
? Guidelines to ensure cohesion amongst the school's instructional materials, faculty, and necessary physical facilities
? Educators from all walks of life, both public and private, should band together to form surprise inspection teams.
References
- Alkharusi, H. (2015). An Evaluation of the Measurement of Perceived Classroom Assessment Environment. International Journal of Instruction, 8(2), 45–54.
- Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B.(1986).Making a difference: teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.
- Bandura, A. (1997). Assessment: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
- Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Journal of Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 269-290.
- Guskey, T. R. (1988). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy. Journal of Educational Research, 81(1), 41-47.
- Hussain, S., Shaheen, N., Ahmad, N., & Islam, S. U. (2019). Teachers’ classroom assessment practices: challenges and opportunities to classroom teachers in Pakistan. Dialogue, 14(1), 88-97.
- Sawada, Y., & Michael, L. (2001). “Household schooling decisions in rural Pakistan,†Policy Research Working Paper no. 2541. Washington, DC: Worl Bank, Development Research Group, Poverty and Human Resources.
- Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in education: principles, policy & practice, 11(1), 49-65.
- World Bank. (1996). “Pakistan—Improving basic education: Community participation, system accountability, and efficiency,†Report no. 14960-PAK. Washington, DC: World Bank, Population and Human Resources Division, Country Department 1, South Asia Region.
Cite this article
-
APA : Khan, W. A., Hameed, A., & Manzoor, A. (2022). An Empirical Study to Compare Gender Disparity in Assessment Practices at Secondary Level. Global Educational Studies Review, VII(III), 91-109. https://doi.org/10.31703/gesr.2022(VII-III).09
-
CHICAGO : Khan, Waqas Ahmad, Abdul Hameed, and Afaf Manzoor. 2022. "An Empirical Study to Compare Gender Disparity in Assessment Practices at Secondary Level." Global Educational Studies Review, VII (III): 91-109 doi: 10.31703/gesr.2022(VII-III).09
-
HARVARD : KHAN, W. A., HAMEED, A. & MANZOOR, A. 2022. An Empirical Study to Compare Gender Disparity in Assessment Practices at Secondary Level. Global Educational Studies Review, VII, 91-109.
-
MHRA : Khan, Waqas Ahmad, Abdul Hameed, and Afaf Manzoor. 2022. "An Empirical Study to Compare Gender Disparity in Assessment Practices at Secondary Level." Global Educational Studies Review, VII: 91-109
-
MLA : Khan, Waqas Ahmad, Abdul Hameed, and Afaf Manzoor. "An Empirical Study to Compare Gender Disparity in Assessment Practices at Secondary Level." Global Educational Studies Review, VII.III (2022): 91-109 Print.
-
OXFORD : Khan, Waqas Ahmad, Hameed, Abdul, and Manzoor, Afaf (2022), "An Empirical Study to Compare Gender Disparity in Assessment Practices at Secondary Level", Global Educational Studies Review, VII (III), 91-109
-
TURABIAN : Khan, Waqas Ahmad, Abdul Hameed, and Afaf Manzoor. "An Empirical Study to Compare Gender Disparity in Assessment Practices at Secondary Level." Global Educational Studies Review VII, no. III (2022): 91-109. https://doi.org/10.31703/gesr.2022(VII-III).09