1. Assessing IFP students’ needs assessment Florencia Franceschina Manchester Metropolitan University [email_address] Inform Conference, University of Reading, 17 July 2010
30. Correlations between ‘objective’ measures - - - - - IFP attend. - - - - EAP attend. .65 - - - IFP mark .67 .81 - - EAP unit mark .36 .22 - Lang test at entry IFP attend. EAP attend. IFP mark EAP unit mark Lang test at entry
31.
32.
33. Correlations between ‘objective’ measures - - - - - IFP attend. - - - - EAP attend. .65 - - - IFP mark .67 .81 - - EAP unit mark .36 .22 - Lang test at entry IFP attend. EAP attend. IFP mark EAP unit mark Lang test at entry
34.
35. Correlations between ‘objective’ measures - - - - - IFP attend. - - - - EAP attend. .65 - - - IFP mark .67 .81 - - EAP unit mark .36 .22 - Lang test at entry IFP attend. EAP attend. IFP mark EAP unit mark Lang test at entry
51. Learning need as judged by students at the end of the IFP IT Writing Reading Listening Speaking Lower Higher
52. EAP unit performance 40 21 38 Writing 47 16 43 Reading 52 15 50 Speaking 53 14 52 Listening 87 27 80 IT Median SD Mean scores Assessment area
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
Notas do Editor
This roughly matches the end-of-year indirect self-assessment (end-of-year survey). This roughly matches the end-of-year indirect self-assessment (end-of-year survey). This may be an indication that the students have improved their self-assessment skills (but it may be due to other factors). Bear in mind that this is a very global measure of self-assessment accuracy.
![Assessing IFP students’ needs assessment Florencia Franceschina Manchester Metropolitan University [email_address] Inform Conference, University of Reading, 17 July 2010](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/10-07-17informconfslides-100719071155-phpapp02/85/10-07-17-inform-conf-slides-1-320.jpg)
![1. Introduction ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()