Vol. 1 No. 24 (2022)
Professional Pedagogics

Professional Pedagogics

E-LEARNING ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING OUTCOMES OF LEARNERS

Published 02.11.2022

  • Oleksandr Radkevych

Oleksandr Radkevych
Institute of Pedagogy of the NAES of Ukraine , Інститут педагогіки НАПН України

Abstract

Relevance: The incessant growth of high technologies in society and education, in particular, has shifted traditional learning formats. The pandemic and military actions have compelled educators to transition the learning process to a remote format. This transition necessitates new approaches to testing and evaluating learning outcomes using electronic technologies, which are widely used in remote and blended learning. Scientific interest is sparked by mobile learning, which introduces a new phase in the educational process, taking into account various contexts through social and content interaction using personal electronic devices. Consequently, there is an urgent need to review the existing paradigm of learning and evaluation.

Objective: To substantiate approaches to the implementation of electronic assessment of learning outcomes for education seekers, taking into account foreign experience.

Methods: Theoretical analysis of scientific and educational-methodological literature on the research problem; comparison, systematization, and generalization of data for the generalization of theoretical materials and the specification of basic research concepts; empirical observations, modeling of educational situations.

Results: During electronic learning, a continuous process of assessment of its outcomes is characteristic, in which information and communication technologies are used for the rapid transmission of respondents' answers. In this process, diagnostic (assesses the presence of subject knowledge; shows results; does not provide feedback; is not value-based; not individualized), formative (assesses the learning process; always positive; individualized; value-based; provides feedback), and summative (assesses learning outcomes; makes evaluative judgments; applied according to standards; shows shortcomings) assessment functions are implemented, depending on the stages of learning at which the assessment is conducted.

Conclusions: The main obstacles to the development of electronic assessment on a school-wide scale for any subject are time and faculty preparation. There are also issues related to software for electronic assessment, such as compatibility with existing systems, scalability, performance, security, and limitations arising during updates, maintenance, and servicing. Electronic assessment is highly dependent on technological systems and tools.

Keywords

assessment of learning outcomes, electronic assessment, testing, objectivity, distance education, general secondary education

PDF

Author Biography

Oleksandr Radkevych

Oleksandr Radkevych,
Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Candidate of Law, Senior Researcher, Chief Researcher,
Institute of Pedagogy of NAPS of Ukraine
м. Kyiv, Ukraine
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2648-5726
e-mail: mr.radkevych@gmail.com

References

  1. Almond, R.G., Steinberg, L.S., Mislevy, R.J., 2002. Enhancing the design and delivery of assessment systems: a four-process architecture. J. Technol. Learn. Assess. (JTLA) 1 (5), 4–64.
  2. AL-Smadi, M., Gu¨ tl, C., Helic, D., 2009. Towards a standardized e-assessment system: motivations, challenges and first findings. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 4 (2), 6–12.
  3. Arthur Jr, W., Doverspike, D., Muñoz, G. J., Taylor, J. E., & Carr, A. E. (2014). The use of mobile devices in high‐stakes remotely delivered assessments and testing. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22(2), 113-123.
  4. Arthur, W., Doverspike, D., Munoz, G. J., Taylor, J. E., & Carr, A. E. (2014). The use of mobile devices in high-stakes remotely delivered assessments and testing. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22, 113–123.
  5. Azevedo, R. (2015). Defining and measuring engagement and learning in science: Conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and analytical issues. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 84–94.
  6. Black, P., Wiliam, D., 2009. Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educ. Assess. Eval. Account. 21 (1), 5–31.
  7. Bloom, B. (1956). Bloom’s taxonomy.
  8. Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for Mastery. Instruction and Curriculum. Regional Education Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia, Topical Papers and Reprints, Number 1. Evaluation comment, 1(2), n2.
  9. Bremer, R. (2014). The Manual-A guide to the Ultimate Study Method.(USM). Amazon Digital Services. Retrieved February, 23.
  10. Castillo, M. S., & Doe, R. (2017). Mobile and Nonmobile Assessment in Organizations: Does Proctoring Make a Difference?. Psychology, 8(06), 878.
  11. Cherry, G., O'Leary, M., Naumenko, O., Kuan, L. A., & Waters, L. (2021). Do outcomes from high stakes examinations taken in test centres and via live remote proctoring differ?. Computers and Education Open, 2, 100061.
  12. Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of mobile learning: Toward learner-centered education.. Handbook of mobile learning. Florence: Routledge.
  13. Daugherty, R. (2010). Summative assessment by teachers.
  14. Harappa (2021). Diagnostic Assessment: Meaning, Examples, and Types. https://harappa.education/harappa-diaries/diagnostic-assessment/
  15. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 194–203
  16. Khaddage, F., Müller, W., & Flintoff, K. (2016). Advancing mobile learning in formal and informal settings via mobile app technology: Where to from here, and how? Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 16–26.
  17. Kuo, C.Y., Wu, H.K., 2013. Toward an integrated model for designing assessment systems: an analysis of the current status of computer-based assessments in science. Comput. Educ. 68, 388–403.
  18. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Lee, V. R., Fischback, L., & Cain, R. (2019). A wearables-based approach to detect and identify momentary engagement in afterschool Makerspace programs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101789
  20. Linquanti. R. (2014). Supporting formative assessment for deeper learning: A primer for policymakers. Washington. DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/Supporting%20Formative%20Assessment%20for%20Deeper %20Learning.pdf
  21. Lutze, R., & Waldhör, K. (2015, October). A smartwatch software architecture for health hazard handling for elderly people. In Healthcare Informatics (ICHI), 2015. International Conference (pp. 356-361).
  22. Mead, A. D., & Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 114(3), 449.
  23. Merchant, G. (2012). Mobile practices in everyday life: Popular digital technologies and schooling revisited. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 770–782.
  24. Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2018). Mobile-based assessment: A literature review of publications in major referred journals from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 125, 101-119.
  25. Pew Research Center. (2019). Mobile fact sheet. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved online at https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/
  26. Popham, W. J.. (2008). Transformative assessment. ASCD.
  27. Potosky, D., & Bobko, P. (2004). Selection testing via the Internet: Practical considerations and exploratory empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 57, 1003–1034
  28. Review of Psychology, 65, 693–717.
  29. Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2014). A century of selection. Annual
  30. Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2003). Internet-based personality testing: Equivalence of measures and assesses’ perceptions and reactions.
  31. Scriven, M. (1967). The Methodology of Evaluation. In R. Tyler, R. Gagné & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation: AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation 1 (pp. 39–83). Chicago: Rand McNally.
  32. Tippins, N. T. (2015). Technology and assessment in selection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 551–582.
  33. Twomey Fosnot, C. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for teaching. Teachers College Press.
  34. Wang, J. R., Kao, H. L., & ve Lin, S. W. (2010). Preservice teachers’ initial conceptions about assessment of science learning: The coherence with their views of learning science. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 522-529. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.014
  35. Wills, G., Bailey, C.P., Davis, H.C., Gilbert, L., Howard, Y., Jeyes, S., Young, R., (2007). An e-learning framework for assessment (FREMA). In: International CAA Conference.
  36. Xie, K., Heddy, B. C., & Vongkulluksn, V. W. (2019). Examining engagement in context using experience-sampling method with mobile technology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101788
  37. Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135–147.
  38. Богданець-Білоскаленко, Н. (2022 квітня 20-21). Підсумкове оцінювання в умовах дистанційно-го навчання. Ін-формаційні технології в культурі, мистецтві, освіті, науці, економіці та бізнесі. Київ, Україна. https://lib.iitta.gov.ua/731534/
  39. Дронь, В. В. (2022 Липень 7-10). Використання технології майндмейппінгу для візуалізації та структурування інфор-мації при дистанційному навчанні. ХХII International Scientific and Practical Conference: Multidisciplinary Academic Research, Innovation And Results, Prague, Czech Republic. https://isg-konf.com/uk/multidisciplinary-academic-research-innovation-and-results-two/
  40. Ковтун В. С. (2020 квітня 2–10 квіт). Підготовка поточного, проміжного та підсумкового оці-нювання інструментами дистанційного навчання іноземної (німецької) мови. Стратегії міжкультур-ної комунікації в мовній освіті сучасних університетів. Київ, Україна. http://projects.dune-hd.com/handle/2010/34100
  41. Король, С. В. (2020). Використання мнемічних прийомів у навчанні іноземної мови в кон-тектсті за-пам’ятовування нових лексичних одиниць.
  42. Крамаренко, В. О., & Ворожбит, А. В. (2021 лютого 12). Підсумкове оцінювання в умовах ди-станційного навчання. Стан освітнього процесу в умовах викликів сьогодення. Дніпро, Україна
  43. Кухар, Л. О., & Сергієнко, В. П. (2010). Конструювання тестів.182
  44. Ресурси de Самопоміч (n.d). Що таке діагностична оцінка і для чого вона потрібна? https://www.recursosdeautoayuda.com/uk/evaluacion-diagnostica/
  45. Случик, В. (2021). Дидактичні засоби навчання в контексті підвищення ефективності уроків читання в почат-ковій школі.
  46. Переклад і транслітерація
  47. Almond, R.G., Steinberg, L.S., Mislevy, R.J., 2002. Enhancing the design and delivery of assessment systems: a four-process architecture. J. Technol. Learn. Assess. (JTLA) 1 (5), 4–64.
  48. AL-Smadi, M., Gu¨ tl, C., Helic, D., 2009. Towards a standardized e-assessment system: motivations, challenges and first findings. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 4 (2), 6–12.
  49. Arthur Jr, W., Doverspike, D., Muñoz, G. J., Taylor, J. E., & Carr, A. E. (2014). The use of mobile devices in high‐stakes remotely delivered assessments and testing. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22(2), 113-123.
  50. Arthur, W., Doverspike, D., Munoz, G. J., Taylor, J. E., & Carr, A. E. (2014). The use of mobile devices in high-stakes remotely delivered assessments and testing. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22, 113–123.
  51. Azevedo, R. (2015). Defining and measuring engagement and learning in science: Conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and analytical issues. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 84–94.
  52. Black, P., Wiliam, D., 2009. Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educ. Assess. Eval. Account. 21 (1), 5–31.
  53. Bloom, B. (1956). Blooms taxonomy.
  54. Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for Mastery. Instruction and Curriculum. Regional Education Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia, Topical Papers and Reprints, Number 1. Evaluation comment, 1(2), n2.
  55. Bremer, R. (2014). The Manual-A guide to the Ultimate Study Method.(USM). Amazon Digital Services. Retrieved February, 23.
  56. Castillo, M. S., & Doe, R. (2017). Mobile and Nonmobile Assessment in Organizations: Does Proctoring Make a Difference?. Psychology, 8(06), 878.
  57. Cherry, G., OLeary, M., Naumenko, O., Kuan, L. A., & Waters, L. (2021). Do outcomes from high stakes examinations taken in test centres and via live remote proctoring differ?. Computers and Education Open, 2, 100061.
  58. Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of mobile learning: Toward learner-centered education.. Handbook of mobile learning. Florence: Routledge.
  59. Daugherty, R. (2010). Summative assessment by teachers.
  60. Harappa (2021). Diagnostic Assessment: Meaning, Examples, and Types. https://harappa.education/harappa-diaries/diagnostic-assessment/
  61. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 194–203
  62. Khaddage, F., Müller, W., & Flintoff, K. (2016). Advancing mobile learning in formal and informal settings via mobile app technology: Where to from here, and how? Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 16–26.
  63. Kuo, C.Y., Wu, H.K., 2013. Toward an integrated model for designing assessment systems: an analysis of the current status of computer-based assessments in science. Comput. Educ. 68, 388–403.
  64. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  65. Lee, V. R., Fischback, L., & Cain, R. (2019). A wearables-based approach to detect and identify momentary engagement in afterschool Makerspace programs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101789
  66. Linquanti. R. (2014). Supporting formative assessment for deeper learning: A primer for policymakers. Washington. DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/Supporting%20Formative%20Assessment%20for%20Deeper %20Learning.pdf
  67. Lutze, R., & Waldhör, K. (2015, October). A smartwatch software architecture for health hazard handling for elderly people. In Healthcare Informatics (ICHI), 2015. International Conference (pp. 356-361).
  68. Mead, A. D., & Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 114(3), 449.
  69. Merchant, G. (2012). Mobile practices in everyday life: Popular digital technologies and schooling revisited. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 770–782.
  70. Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2018). Mobile-based assessment: A literature review of publications in major referred journals from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 125, 101-119.
  71. Pew Research Center. (2019). Mobile fact sheet. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved online at https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/
  72. Popham, W. J.. (2008). Transformative assessment. ASCD.
  73. Potosky, D., & Bobko, P. (2004). Selection testing via the Internet: Practical considerations and exploratory empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 57, 1003–1034
  74. Review of Psychology, 65, 693–717.
  75. Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2014). A century of selection. Annual
  76. Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2003). Internet-based personality testing: Equivalence of measures and assesses perceptions and reactions.
  77. Scriven, M. (1967). The Methodology of Evaluation. In R. Tyler, R. Gagné & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation: AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation 1 (pp. 39–83). Chicago: Rand McNally.
  78. Tippins, N. T. (2015). Technology and assessment in selection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 551–582.
  79. Twomey Fosnot, C. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for teaching. Teachers College Press.
  80. Wang, J. R., Kao, H. L., & ve Lin, S. W. (2010). Preservice teachers initial conceptions about assessment of science learning: The coherence with their views of learning science. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 522-529. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.014
  81. Wills, G., Bailey, C.P., Davis, H.C., Gilbert, L., Howard, Y., Jeyes, S., Young, R., (2007). An e-learning framework for assessment (FREMA). In: International CAA Conference.
  82. Xie, K., Heddy, B. C., & Vongkulluksn, V. W. (2019). Examining engagement in context using experience-sampling method with mobile technology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101788
  83. Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135–147.
  84. Bohdanets-Biloskalenko, N. (2022 kvitnia 20-21). Pidsumkove otsiniuvannia v umovakh dystantsiinoho navchannia [Final assessment in the conditions of distance learning.]. In-formatsiini tekhnolohii v kulturi, mystetstvi, osviti, nautsi, ekonomitsi ta biznesi. Kyiv, Ukraina. https://lib.iitta.gov.ua/731534/
  85. Dron, V. V. (2022 Lypen 7-10). Vykorystannia tekhnolohii maindmeippinhu dlia vizualizatsii ta strukturuvannia infor-matsii pry dystantsiinomu navchanni [Using mind mapping technology for visualization and structuring of information in distance learning.]. KhKhII International Scientific and Practical Conference: Multidisciplinary Academic Research, Innovation And Results, Prague, Czech Republic. https://isg-konf.com/uk/multidisciplinary-academic-research-innovation-and-results-two/
  86. Kovtun V. S. (2020 kvitnia 2–10 kvit). Pidhotovka potochnoho, promizhnoho ta pidsumkovoho otsiniuvannia instrumentamy dystantsiinoho navchannia inozemnoi (nimetskoi) movy [Preparation of current, intermediate and final assessment with the tools of distance learning of foreign (German) language]. Stratehii mizhkulturnoi komunikatsii v movnii osviti suchasnykh universytetiv. Kyiv, Ukraina. http://projects.dune-hd.com/handle/2010/34100
  87. Korol, S. V. (2020). Vykorystannia mnemichnykh pryiomiv u navchanni inozemnoi movy v kontektsti za-pamiatovuvannia novykh leksychnykh odynyts [The use of mnemonic techniques in teaching a foreign language in the context of memorizing new lexical items].
  88. Kramarenko, V. O., & Vorozhbyt, A. V. (2021 liutoho 12). Pidsumkove otsiniuvannia v umovakh dystantsiinoho navchannia [Final assessment in the conditions of distance learning]. Stan osvitnoho protsesu v umovakh vyklykiv sohodennia. Dnipro, Ukraina
  89. Kukhar, L. O., & Serhiienko, V. P. (2010). Konstruiuvannia testiv [Design of tests].182
  90. Resursy de Samopomich (n.d). Shcho take diahnostychna otsinka i dlia choho vona potribna? [What is a diagnostic assessment and why is it needed?] https://www.recursosdeautoayuda.com/uk/evaluacion-diagnostica/
  91. Sluchyk, V. (2021). Dydaktychni zasoby navchannia v konteksti pidvyshchennia efektyvnosti urokiv chytannia v pochat-kovii shkoli [Didactic teaching aids in the context of improving the effectiveness of reading lessons in primary school].

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 > >>