A Constructive and Empirical Study of Personalized Teaching Quality Evaluation for Elementary School English Teachers
Online veröffentlicht: 24. März 2025
Eingereicht: 13. Okt. 2024
Akzeptiert: 05. Feb. 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2025-0748
Schlüsselwörter
© 2025 Xinrong Sun, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Core literacy is a hot topic in English teaching in today’s world, and to realize the purpose of elementary school English teaching by taking core literacy as the core competence is an important direction for the reform of English teaching in China today [1-2]. Due to the characteristics of elementary school English, it has a variety of teaching contents, and the flexibility and flexibility of teaching methods are more favorable to the cultivation of students’ core qualities. Only through an in-depth analysis of the core competencies of the English subject can we really solve some problems in elementary school English teaching [3-5]. At the same time, “Teaching-Learning-Assessment Integration” is a new dynamic teaching cycle system that combines teaching, learning and assessment organically, so that the core qualities of the English subject can be truly improved. How to establish the core competence of “Teaching-Learning-Assessment” is one of the main directions for the optimization of English in elementary school, and it is also a major issue for further deepening English teaching [6-8].
The development of primary school students’ interest in English learning, emotional education and self-confidence building will have a great impact on their future English learning [9-10]. How to do a good job of teaching English in elementary school is what teachers of foreign language educators must pay attention to. Based on China’s large population and large surface of basic education, China’s basic English education is mainly through classroom teaching [11-12]. Therefore, elementary school English classroom teaching is particularly important, and an important measure to ensure the success of classroom teaching is to use good classroom teaching evaluation methods [13].
The new curriculum specifies the direction of elementary school English teaching reform and puts forward targeted teaching requirements. The “evaluation suggestions” part of the new standard puts forward that “teaching evaluation should take the development of students’ core literacy as the starting point and finishing point”, emphasizing that students’ subjective initiative should be brought into play, and various evaluation methods should be used [14-16]. It can be seen that teaching evaluation in elementary school English teaching under the new curriculum standard is not only conducive to improving the quality of English classroom teaching, but also has an important significance in promoting the overall quality of students [17-18]. Under the new standards, teaching evaluation has the dual nature of critical and motivational, on the one hand, pointing to the students’ learning deficiencies, emphasizing teaching feedback, on the other hand, pointing to the students’ learning awareness, emphasizing teaching incentives [19]. Elementary school English learning emphasizes more on the memorization and practice of knowledge, while providing students with positive feedback by giving them correct and positive evaluation content has a significant role in enhancing students’ internal motivation for learning [20]. Secondly, in teaching evaluation, teachers can observe students’ learning performance, clarify teaching problems, and then design targeted teaching programs around students’ developmental characteristics, ability enhancement and literacy development and other dimensions, and flexibly adjust the content of the program in teaching. In this case, teaching evaluation is a tool that can help teachers obtain teaching feedback, make timely self-evaluation and adjust the teaching content [21-22]. Finally, the implementation of the new curriculum standard makes the traditional single teaching evaluation mode led by teachers start to change to the multi-dimensional teaching evaluation mode with students as the main body [23]. On the one hand, under the new standards, teachers began to return the right of teaching evaluation to students, and the combined use of student self-assessment, student-student mutual evaluation and other evaluation methods can highlight the comprehensiveness and objectivity of teaching evaluation. On the other hand, innovative teaching evaluation methods such as process evaluation and comprehensive evaluation not only pay attention to the improvement of students’ learning achievements, but also pay more attention to the cultivation of students’ comprehensive literacy, which is conducive to the cultivation of students’ ability to independently discover and solve problems [24-25].
This paper takes constructivist learning theory, multiple intelligences theory, and personalized teaching theory as the theoretical premises for the evaluation of personalized teaching quality in primary English studied in this paper. It analyzes teachers’ teaching evaluation literacy as well as language teachers’ evaluation literacy, and proposes a language evaluation literacy scale consisting of ten dimensions: theoretical knowledge, principles and concepts, language teaching, evaluation impact and social value, localization practice, personal beliefs and attitudes, scoring and decision-making, constructing language evaluation, managing/assigning language evaluation, and assessing evaluation. A questionnaire survey was conducted to statistically organize the overall level of language evaluation literacy of primary English teachers, as well as the level of each dimension, and to compare the two aspects of gender and age, respectively. Aggregate teachers’ basic information as the independent variable, and analyze the influence of teachers’ basic information on the evaluation of classroom teaching quality.
Constructivist Theory Constructivist learning theory was proposed by the famous psychologist Piaget. This theory believes that students can understand new knowledge and improve their cognitive structure through their own experience, with the help of teachers and classmates. The theory also believes that rote memorization is difficult to provide help for meaningful literacy and that meaningful learning can only be achieved if students actively construct [26]. Constructive theory encourages cooperative learning between students and peers, and personalized teaching provides a platform for students to communicate and collaborate. This platform contains diversified learning resources, efficient learning tools, and a harmonious dialogue environment, all of which are in line with the ideas of scenario, collaboration, and meaning construction advocated by the constructive theory. Therefore, it is feasible to fully explore the constructivism theory to improve the personalized teaching mode. The application of constructivism theory in personalized teaching Constructivist theory opposes the traditional “duck” teaching in which teachers are responsible for speaking and students are responsible for listening, and advocates that learners use their own knowledge structure to understand new knowledge. In the process of personalized teaching of English in elementary school, students often need a period of time to connect with their previous English knowledge reserves before they can assimilate or adapt their English knowledge. In addition, after students encounter problems in the process of English personalized teaching, teachers can guide them to correct their mistakes, update their schemas, and help students independently complete the reconstruction and integration of what they have learned. Gardner’s view of intelligence is different from the traditional view of intelligence. Gardner put forward the famous theory of multiple intelligences. Multiple Intelligences Theory believes that there are seven types of intelligences in an individual, which are verbal-linguistic, mathematical-logical, visual-spatial, musical-rhythmic, bodily-motor, interpersonal-communication, and self-knowledge intelligences. Practical Application of Multiple Intelligences Theory in Personalized Teaching Each of the seven intelligences in the multiple intelligences theory is responsible for the development of an individual’s unique intelligence.
Verbal and linguistic intelligence, specifically expressed in listening, reading, writing and speaking, corresponding to listening, speaking, reading and writing in the personalized teaching of primary English. Mathematical and logical intelligence, specifically embodied in numeracy, calculation, measurement, reasoning, cause and effect, corresponding to the contextual logical reasoning of English articles in the personalized teaching of elementary school English. Visual-spatial intelligence, specifically in direction recognition, maze walking, jigsaw puzzles, imagination, detection, design, corresponding to the memory of the position of the letters of the words in the personalized teaching of elementary school English, and so on. Musical-rhythmic intelligence, which specifically involves appreciating music, identifying tones, playing beats, singing, etc., corresponding to the memory of pronunciation of words and appreciation of English songs in the personalized teaching of elementary school English. Physical-motor intelligence, specifically involving touch, gesture, performance, manipulation, movement, etc., corresponding to the performance of English sitcoms in the personalized teaching of primary English. Interpersonal Communication Intelligence, specifically about communication, division of labor, cooperation, understanding and caring for others, corresponding to the communication of English groups in the personalized teaching of primary English, etc. It is self-knowledge intelligence, specifically about solitude, reflection, knowing oneself, managing oneself, etc., corresponding to the individual student’s conscious reflection on English learning in the personalized teaching of elementary school English, etc. It can be seen that Multiple Intelligences Theory plays an important role in providing personalized teaching methods for elementary English. Personalized Teaching Theory Personalized teaching theory emphasizes taking students as the center, following the law of students’ physical and mental development, paying attention to students’ individual differences, cultivating students’ autonomy, and promoting students’ personality development [27-28]. Therefore, in conceptual terms, personalized teaching theory requires respect for students and the pursuit of diverse education instead of standardized education. In the view of knowledge, personalized teaching theory requires respecting students’ individuality, paying attention to their differences, and guiding students to learn and construct knowledge independently. In the field of teaching, personalized teaching advocates the formulation of teaching objectives, teaching design, and teaching evaluation according to the situation of the students. It provides students with diverse learning experiences and curriculum, uses a variety of teaching methods and approaches to guide their learning, and helps students develop their personal values, knowledge, and abilities. In terms of students’ views, the theory of personalized teaching requires that students’ individual development be promoted from their existing experiences and their own potentials, so that they can form their unique personalities.
In this study, the investigation and research on teachers’ individualized teaching literacy cannot be separated from the support of individualized teaching theory, which is present throughout this study. First, personalized teaching theory was used as the basis to define the concept of personalized literacy teaching. Secondly, personalized teaching theory was used as a guide to develop the survey instrument for this study. Finally, the personalized teaching theory was used as a criterion to analyze and judge the classroom teaching of primary English teachers, laying the foundation for the subsequent impact analysis. In conclusion, the personalized teaching theory is significant in defining the theory of this study, preparing the survey instrument, and analyzing the data.
The objective of this study is to evaluate the teaching activities of elementary school English teachers. Teachers are the direct participants and guides of teaching evaluation activities, they have the most comprehensive and profound understanding of the evaluation object, and they also have the most clear understanding of evaluation activities. They have the most comprehensive and profound understanding of the evaluation object and the most clear understanding of the evaluation activity, that is, what teaching effect and teaching purpose they need to achieve through the means of evaluation. Teachers with good teaching evaluation literacy will pay particular attention to the overall development and improvement of students’ knowledge, emotion, intention and behavior, and through reasonable and effective evaluation methods to diagnose and help students rather than to differentiate and assess students.
Teaching evaluation literacy is a necessary quality for teachers to engage in and handle the task of teaching evaluation. It should be noted that it is not a fixed concept, but a dynamic and updated concept. Teaching evaluation literacy will continue to improve as teachers develop physically and mentally, and will be updated as they practice and explore educational evaluation activities.
In this study, teachers’ evaluation literacy means that teachers possess scientific evaluation consciousness for development evaluation. In daily teaching, they make evaluation behaviors that match their evaluation attitudes, flexibly use evaluation skills to make correct judgments about students’ academic achievement performance, and realize the use of students’ feedback to constantly adjust and improve their teaching activities so as to promote students’ all-round development.
This study focuses on the status of elementary school English teachers’ evaluation literacy, i.e., the evaluation awareness, evaluation attitudes, evaluation knowledge, and evaluation skills required by English teachers when evaluating students’ academic performance in the teaching process. Specifically, it includes the attitudes that English teachers hold when making value judgments about students’ knowledge and ability levels, and the awareness of evaluation that is up-to-date and student-oriented. Teachers’ theoretical knowledge related to the evaluation of English teaching and the evaluation skills they demonstrate when conducting evaluation activities during teaching practice.
This study intends to answer the following questions:
What is the overall level of language assessment literacy among the primary English teacher population? How does it perform on different dimensions? Are there differences in the level of language evaluation literacy among teachers of different genders and ages? What are the factors affecting the evaluation literacy of elementary school English teachers?
This study used convenience sampling for data collection by distributing an online questionnaire to a group of teachers in the school and asking the primary English teachers to help fill it out. This was done to facilitate both the collection of the questionnaire for this study and the acquisition of the sample size for this study. This study investigated the language assessment literacy of 370 primary English teachers in the form of questionnaires and interviewed four primary English teachers in the form of semi-structured group interviews in order to depict the current situation of language assessment literacy of foreign language teachers at the basic education level.
Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS26 software, while questionnaire data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, independent samples t-test, and one-way ANOVA respectively. Qualitative interview data were first transcribed and subsequently analyzed thematically.
Teachers’ teaching quality assessment is a comprehensive system that can evaluate and measure the teaching level of teachers in schools. It has a very important normative and guiding role in establishing teachers as role models, stimulating teachers’ enthusiasm for teaching, and improving the overall quality of teaching in schools.
Teacher teaching quality assessment has a broad and narrow sense.
Teaching quality assessment in the narrow sense refers to the school’s comprehensive assessment of the teaching situation of the teachers in the school for the specific teaching objectives, to get their strengths and weaknesses, so as to improve the teaching in a targeted manner.
Teaching quality assessment in the broader sense refers to the assessment of all factors that affect teaching and learning in teaching activities, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of various factors, in order to improve teaching and learning.
Teaching quality assessment is not only an important part of teaching and learning activities, but also the basis for improving the quality of teaching and learning and achieving success in teaching and learning.
Questionnaire surveys are a method for people to obtain research data through social surveys. For example, when a researcher wants to study a phenomenon through a questionnaire survey, they first need to identify the various factors that affect the phenomenon. Then according to these factors to prepare specific questions and form a questionnaire to print, and the printed questionnaire will be distributed to the research object to fill in. After completing the questionnaire collection and organization of the questionnaire, eliminating invalid answers. Finally, the answers of valid questionnaires are summarized and counted to form a form. According to the different data in the form, choose different statistical methods to analyze. According to the results of the analysis to draw the appropriate conclusions. There are many types of questionnaires. There are different classifications depending on the carrier, the respondent of the questionnaire, etc.
Cluster analysis Cluster analysis is the process of classifying questionnaire sample data based on certain attributes, and then analyzing and counting the resultant data to draw statistical analysis conclusions. The basic idea of cluster analysis in questionnaire survey is that for the respondents of the study, they have a certain degree of relatedness or similarity to a certain extent, such as students, workers, IT personnel and so on. Based on this degree of relatedness, the respondents are aggregated into one category and all the respondents are categorized and statistically analyzed. This will make it clearer to study the groups of interest of the respondents and come up with the conclusion of the study that the researcher wants. The K-mean algorithm is a commonly used to carry out automatic partitioning set into First select STEP1: Calculate the distance from each sample {
STEP2: After each sample has been categorized, recalculate the clustering center, which is calculated as follows:
Where
STEP3: Calculate the J-value:
Repeat until the Regression analysis
Regression analysis is a quantitative analysis method to determine the association between two or more variables. It is categorized into univariate regression and multiple regression according to the number of variables. If there is only one independent variable and one dependent variable, univariate regression can be used. When a dependent variable is regressed on more than one independent variable, it is called multilinear regression analysis. According to the type of relationship between the variables it is categorized as linear regression and non-linear regression. The regression analysis model usually used in questionnaire analysis is discrete regression model, which is used to measure the magnitude of the effect of one variable on another. For example, the extent to which the teacher’s classroom severity in teaching affects the quality of teaching.
One-way ANOVA of the effect of teaching quality Factor: factor refers to the independent variable in the experiment, also known as the influence factor. ANOVA with only one independent variable is called one-way ANOVA. ANOVA with two or more independent variables is called multi-factor ANOVA. Levels: The different grades of the influencing factors are called levels, e.g., excellent, good, fair, and poor in test scores. Degrees of Freedom: degrees of freedom (df) the number of variables that can take values freely in mathematics. In statistics, degrees of freedom refers to the number of variables that take unrestricted values when calculating a given statistic. A one-factor analysis of variance is the process of dividing the total into sub-totals according to a categorical variable, and analyzing the differences in the means of a common variable across these sub-totals. For example, suppose there is a need to compare the mean scores of four teachers in EFL. The variable under study would be the ELA scores, and the categorical variable would be the “teachers”, i.e., the factors. If the four teachers are called Teacher 1, Teacher 2, Teacher 3, and Teacher 4, they are factor levels. This example is therefore called a factor four level experiment. Now denote by
A sample of capacity is now drawn from population
The research question then boils down to testing the hypothesis:
Whether or not it is valid.
Usually, the results of the experiment are also called experimental indicators, and the conditions to be examined in the test, which can be controlled, are called factors or factors. In order to examine the effect of a factor on the experimental indicators, often the other factors affecting the experimental indicators are fixed, and that factor to be examined is strictly controlled in several different states or levels of the test, such an experiment is called a one-factor experiment. The problem of statistical inference dealing with one-factor experiments is called one-factor analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA). Similarly one can define a multi-factor ANOVA.
Each state or level of a factor is referred to as a level of the factor, usually using a capital letter
Suppose a random variable obtained in a particular experiment in which factor A takes r different levels
And assume that
Now,
The results of this experiment are seen as a sample
It follows from such a definition:
Order:
Then
The hypothesis to be tested is:
For convenience, make some formal transformations of
Call
Thus, the
In summary, the following assumptions were made for the appeal test results:
Thus
In this paper, we call the test index that meets the above conditions as the statistical model of ANOVA of one-factor multilevel unequally repeated tests, referred to as the ANOVA model of one-factor, where
The specific steps of one-factor ANOVA are as follows:
STEP1: Create the original hypothesis
STEP2: Calculate
where
STEP3: Statistical decision: for a given significance level
This study used the Language Evaluation Literacy Scale which is organized into 10 dimensions. Namely, theoretical knowledge, principles and concepts, language teaching and learning, evaluation impact and social value, localization practices, personal beliefs and attitudes, scoring and decision-making, constructing language evaluation, managing/assigning language evaluation, and assessment of evaluation.
The scale is a 5-point Likert scale with scoring from 0 to 4 (0=not at all, 1=slightly, 2=moderately, 3=very well, 4=very well).
The language assessment literacy scale dimensions and sample items are shown in Table 1.
Language evaluation scale dimension and sample project
| Language evaluation literacy dimension | Sample project |
|---|---|
| Theoretical knowledge | Language skills (e.g. listening, speaking, reading, writing) are developing. |
| Principles and concepts | The concept of reliability (the accuracy and consistency of the evaluation). |
| Language teaching | How to use evaluation to guide learning or teaching goals. |
| Evaluation impact and social value | How to identify inappropriate evaluations. |
| Localization practice | How to determine whether the language evaluation is consistent with the local authentication system. |
| Personal beliefs and attitudes | Personal beliefs and attitudes to language evaluation. |
| Grading and decision making | How to explain the individual language ability of a particular score. |
| Build language evaluation | Select the appropriate grading criteria (the classification criteria). |
| Management/assignment evaluation | Use grading criteria to rate oral or writing performance. |
| Evaluation of evaluation | Use statistics to analyze the difficulty of a single project (problem) or task. |
The mean scores of the questionnaire items in the 10 dimensions of the language evaluation literacy concept were calculated to arrive at the overall level of language evaluation literacy of the participating teachers in the 10 dimensions.
The language evaluation literacy levels of the elementary English teachers are shown in Table 2. As can be seen from the table, the overall language evaluation literacy of elementary English teachers was at a moderate level, with an overall mean score value of 2.16. The mean scores of all dimensions were around 2, indicating that the level of each dimension was relatively average. The dimension of language teaching scored the highest (M=2.34), indicating that among the dimensions, the elementary English teachers’ group intervened in teaching with relatively abundant literacy, and possessed the awareness and ability to use language evaluation to serve foreign language teaching. The dimension with the lowest score was assessment of evaluation (M=2.01), indicating that elementary English teachers are the least capable of using statistical knowledge to reanalyze evaluations.
The language evaluation literacy level of primary school English teachers
| Dimension | Mean | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|
| Theoretical knowledge | 2.23 | 0.91 |
| Principles and concepts | 2.05 | 1.03 |
| Language teaching | 2.34 | 0.90 |
| Evaluation impact and social value | 2.14 | 0.93 |
| Localization practice | 2.04 | 0.99 |
| Personal beliefs and attitudes | 2.16 | 0.97 |
| Grading and decision making | 2.10 | 1.02 |
| Build language evaluation | 2.12 | 0.94 |
| Management/assignment evaluation | 2.15 | 0.94 |
| Evaluation of evaluation | 2.01 | 0.98 |
| Total mean | 2.16 | 0.86 |
Of the four primary English teachers interviewed, three indicated that they had never taken a specialized course in language assessment during their teacher education, and one indicated that “I think I have a little memory of it, but I have forgotten about it since I have been in the workforce for a long time, and I don’t need it in my work environment now.” At the stage of induction training or further study, all four teachers reported that they had not received specialized training in language assessment and that knowledge about language assessment was mostly acquired through the channel of lectures. “The city will organize university teachers to give lectures, and [in the lectures] they will learn something about it.” This reflects that there is a lack of specialized knowledge training sessions on language evaluation in the career of elementary school English teachers.
An independent samples t-test was conducted on the language evaluation literacy data of male and female teachers, and the results of the comparison of the scores on the dimensions of language evaluation literacy between male and female teachers are shown in Table 3.
The language evaluation of male and female teachers scores in each dimension
| Dimension | Man(n=37) | Female(n=333) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Theoretical knowledge | 2.24/0.89 | 2.22/0.92 | 0.100 | 0.921 |
| Principles and concepts | 2.11/1.01 | 2.04/1.04 | 0.363 | 0.717 |
| Language teaching | 2.18/0.88 | 2.36/0.90 | -1.139 | 0.255 |
| Evaluation impact and social value | 1.98/0.99 | 2.16/0.93 | -1.102 | 0.271 |
| Localization practice | 1.99/1.02 | 2.05/0.99 | -0.370 | 0.712 |
| Personal beliefs and attitudes | 2.07/0.97 | 2.17/0.97 | -0.600 | 0.549 |
| Grading and decision making | 2.11/0.99 | 2.10/1.03 | 0.068 | 0.946 |
| Build language evaluation | 2.10/0.93 | 2.13/0.94 | -0.177 | 0.859 |
| Management/assignment evaluation | 2.06/0.95 | 2.16/0.94 | -0.561 | 0.575 |
| Evaluation of evaluation | 2.03/1.01 | 2.01/0.97 | 0.142 | 0.887 |
| Total mean | 2.09/0.91 | 2.16/0.86 | -0.467 | 0.641 |
The results of the independent samples t-test show that the total mean scores of male and female teachers are close to each other, suggesting that teachers of different genders have similar levels of language evaluation literacy. The scores of male and female teachers on the 10 dimensions are relatively close and there is no significant difference, but the scores of female teachers are slightly higher than those of male teachers on the dimension of language teaching. The results indicate that teachers’ gender does not significantly affect language evaluation literacy, but female teachers are more capable of implementing evaluation in their teaching.
Qualitative interviews showed that female teachers pay more attention to the affective function of assessment when using assessment in teaching. Emphasis was placed on the use of evaluation to motivate students to learn: “To affirm the student more, give him more encouragement, organize reading activities before class, and if the student has made particularly great progress today, I will go to affirm him in time. In this way his interest in learning is raised.” The male teachers interviewed, on the other hand, pay more attention to the evaluation criteria and dimensions: “At the moment, they will incorporate linguistic awareness in the evaluation, as well as intercultural competence as a point of examination”.
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to obtain the results of the comparison of language assessment literacy among teachers of different ages. The comparative data on language evaluation literacy of teachers of different ages are shown in Table 4.
The language evaluation literacy comparison data of different age teachers
| Dimension | 20-30(n=55) | 31-40(n=121) | 41-50 (n=164) | 51-60 (n=30) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Theoretical knowledge | 2.45/0.84 | 2.42/0.89 | 2.04/0.90 | 2.06/0.98 | 5.763 | 0.001 |
| Principles and concepts | 2.34/0.98 | 2.27/1.05 | 1.81/0.97 | 1.93/1.12 | 6.707 | 0.000 |
| Language teaching | 2.49/0.84 | 2.51/0.92 | 2.19/0.89 | 2.22/0.89 | 3.728 | 0.012 |
| Evaluation impact and social value | 2.30/0.87 | 2.30/0.95 | 2.00/0.92 | 2.13/0.98 | 3.061 | 0.028 |
| Localization practice | 2.15/0.94 | 2.25/1.00 | 1.86/0.98 | 2.03/0.96 | 3.866 | 0.01 |
| Personal beliefs and attitudes | 2.24/0.92 | 2.34/0.96 | 2.00/0.97 | 2.15/0.94 | 3.082 | 0.027 |
| Grading and decision making | 2.22/1.05 | 2.27/1.01 | 1.91/1.02 | 2.20/0.92 | 3.469 | 0.016 |
| Build language evaluation | 2.30/0.88 | 2.29/0.93 | 1.94/0.93 | 2.15/0.97 | 4.142 | 0.007 |
| Management/assignment evaluation | 2.36/0.92 | 2.29/0.93 | 2.00/0.92 | 1.99/0.98 | 3.669 | 0.013 |
| Evaluation of evaluation | 2.13/0.98 | 2.21/0.96 | 1.83/0.97 | 1.93/0.97 | 3.978 | 0.008 |
| Total mean | 2.31/0.83 | 2.34/0.86 | 1.98/0.84 | 2.09/0.88 | 4.776 | 0.003 |
In terms of the total mean scores, there is an extremely significant difference in the scores of groups of teachers of different age groups (
Post-hoc tests were conducted on different dimensions, and the results of the post-hoc tests for teachers in different age groups are shown in Table 5.
The results of the test results of different age groups
| Dimension | Age group | Age group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Theoretical knowledge | 20-30(n=55) | 41-50(n=164) | |
| 31-40(n=121) | 41-50(n=164) | ||
| 31-40(n=121) | 51-60(n=30) | ||
| Principles and concepts | 20-30(n=55) | 41-50(n=164) | |
| 31-40(n=121) | 41-50(n=164) | ||
| Language teaching | 20-30(n=55) | 41-50 (n=164) | |
| 31-40(n=121) | 41-50(n=164) | ||
| Evaluation impact and social value | 20-30(n=55) | 41-50(n=164) | |
| 31-40(n=121) | 41-50(n=164) | ||
| Localization practice | 31-40(n=121) | 41-50(n=164) | |
| Personal beliefs and attitudes | 31-40(n=121) | 41-50(n=164) | |
| Grading and decision making | 31-40(n=121) | 41-50(n=164) | |
| Build language evaluation | 20-30(n=55) | 41-50(n=164) | |
| 31-40(n=121) | 41-50(n=164) | ||
| Management/assignment evaluation | 20-30(n=55) | 41-50(n=164) | |
| 31-40(n=121) | 41-50(n=164) | ||
| Evaluation of evaluation | 31-40(n=121) | 41-50(n=164) | |
| Total mean | 20-30(n=55) | 41-50(n=164) | |
| 31-40(n=121) | 41-50(n=164) |
From the results of the post hoc test, the most significant differences in literacy in all dimensions were found among teachers in the young group (20-30 years old group), teachers in the middle-aged group (31-40 years old group) and teachers in the middle-aged and old-aged group (41-50 years old). While teachers in the older age group (51-60 years old) had significant differences with teachers in the middle age group only in the dimension of theoretical knowledge and did not see significant differences with the other three groups in other dimensions.
Among them, in the dimensions of theoretical knowledge and principles and concepts, there were extremely significant differences (p<0.01) between teachers in both the young and middle-aged groups and teachers in the middle-aged group, and the mean scores were higher than those of the middle-aged and elderly teachers. This suggests that young and middle-aged primary English teachers have more specialized knowledge of language assessment theory and related doctrinal concepts.
A teacher in the middle-aged group said in the interview, “We do have a complete system. It’s based on the curriculum standards first, mainly on the standards, and it’s all clearly written in the standards now, and there’s a special section about assessment”.
In all three dimensions of localization practices, personal beliefs and attitudes, and scoring and decision-making, middle-aged teachers differed extremely significantly from middle-aged and older teachers and scored higher than the other three groups. This indicates that the middle-aged teacher group has the highest literacy levels in these three dimensions. In the dimensions of constructed language assessment and managed/assigned language assessment, the differences between young and middle-aged teachers were significant, and the differences between middle-aged teachers and middle-aged teachers were extremely significant. This suggests that young and middle-aged teachers are more adept at designing evaluation norms as well as putting existing norms into operation, reflecting the creativity of young and middle-aged teachers in developing evaluation criteria.
This section is to analyze whether teachers’ personalized teaching literacy has any effect on classroom teaching, so regression analysis was used to analyze the data. The results of regression analysis of teachers’ basic information on classroom teaching evaluation are shown in Table 6.
The regression analysis of teacher information on teaching evaluation
| Variable | Nonnormalized coefficient | Standard coefficient | t | Sig. | Common linear statistics | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard error | Trial version | Tolerance | VIF | ||||
| Gender | -0.115 | 0.075 | -0.121 | -1.895 | 0.078 | 0.875 | 1.153 |
| Educational background | -0.063 | 0.062 | -0.077 | -0.936 | 0.414 | 0.902 | 1.217 |
| Majors | -0.0011 | 0.081 | -0.012 | -0.124 | 0.923 | 0.934 | 1.096 |
| Teaching age | -0.136 | 0.055 | -0.205 | -3.295 | 0.034* | 0.413 | 2.332 |
| Job title | 0.086 | 0.059 | 0.156 | 1.515 | 0.187 | 0.567 | 1.898 |
| Teaching discipline | 0.005 | 0.020 | 0.032 | 0.186 | 0.879 | 0.639 | 1.521 |
| Class teacher | -0.031 | 0.067 | -0.036 | -0.425 | 0.621 | 0.747 | 1.436 |
| Class amount | -0.04 | 0.005 | -0.021 | -0.307 | 0.832 | 0.932 | 1.084 |
| School site | 0.025 | 0.086 | 0.019 | 0.396 | 0.865 | 0.911 | 1.032 |
| Personalized training | -0.329 | 0.071 | -0.275 | -4.213 | 0.000** | 0.934 | 1.076 |
Regression analysis was conducted using SPSS 26.0 with teachers’ basic information as the independent variable and classroom teaching evaluation sessions as the dependent variable. Through data analysis, it was found that teachers’ basic information had a significant effect on the evaluation session of personalized teaching quality (sig = 0.005 < 0.05), and mainly the training related to personalized teaching had a significant negative effect on the evaluation session of classroom teaching (
Regression analysis was conducted using SPSS 20.0 with personalized teaching literacy as the independent variable and teaching quality evaluation link as the dependent variable. The results of regression analysis of personalized teaching literacy on teaching quality evaluation are shown in Table 7. According to the analysis of the data, it can be seen that the coefficient of Durbin-Watson is 2.517, which indicates that the samples are independent. And VIF <5, there is no multicollinearity between the samples, indicating that the results of this operation are accurate and reliable. Both personalized teaching skills and personalized teaching affective dimensions have a significant effect on teachers’ classroom teaching evaluation sessions (sig < 0.05). The value of
The regression analysis of the evaluation of teaching quality evaluation
| Model | Nonnormalized coefficient | Standard coefficient | t | Sig. | Common linear statistics | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard error | Trial version | Tolerance | VIF | ||||
| Personalized teaching skills | 0.301 | 0.025 | 0.336 | 4.632 | 0.000** | 0.362 | 4.523 |
| Personalized teaching | 0.325 | 0.031 | 0.389 | 5.117 | 0.000** | 0.314 | 3.811 |
| Personalized teaching knowledge | 0.366 | 0.177 | 0.025 | 0.241 | 0.871 | 0.852 | 1.098 |
This paper analyzes the theoretical basis of personalized English teaching in elementary school and proposes a language evaluation literacy scale that includes ten dimensions of theoretical knowledge, principles, and concepts, as well as language teaching. The Language Evaluation Literacy Scale is used to evaluate the teaching quality of elementary English teachers.
The overall mean score of language evaluation literacy of elementary school English teachers is 2.16, which is in the middle level. The average score of each dimension is around 2, and the development level of each dimension is relatively average. Among them, the language teaching dimension scored the highest, indicating that the elementary school English teacher group has a high level of language teaching literacy and has the ability to carry out language teaching. In the comparative analysis of language evaluation literacy between male and female teachers, the total mean scores of male and female teachers are close to each other, and there is no significant difference in the dimensions. However, there were significant differences in the comparison of language evaluation literacy among teachers of different ages. There was an extremely significant difference in the group scores of teachers in different age groups ( The regression equation from the basic teacher information on classroom teaching evaluation yielded that the training related to teachers’ personalized teaching had a significant negative effect on the classroom teaching quality evaluation session. Divide the personalized teaching literacy, in which personalized teaching skills, personalized teaching affective and classroom teaching evaluation link has a positive effect.