AN EMPIRICAL STUDY TO COMPARE GENDER DISPARITY IN ASSESSMENT PRACTICES AT SECONDARY LEVEL

http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/gesr.2022(VII-III).09      10.31703/gesr.2022(VII-III).09      Published : Sep 2022
Authored by : Waqas Ahmad Khan , Abdul Hameed , Afaf Manzoor

09 Pages : 91-109

    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