Vol. 1 No. 26 (2023)
Professional Pedagogics

Professional Pedagogics

ADAPTIVE TESTING IN THE CONTEXT OF USING ELECTRONIC LEARNING TOOLS: ESSENCE, DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT

Published 25.07.2023

  • Oleksandr Radkevych

Oleksandr Radkevych
Institute of pedagogy of NAPS of Ukraine , Інститут педагогіки НАПН України

Abstract

The relevance of the article is determined by the appropriateness of using adaptive testing in education based on electronic learning tools, in particular Google Forms for accurate measurement of knowledge and skills of learners.

Aim: to illuminate the general concept of adaptive testing of learners in the context of using electronic learning tools.

Methods: literature analysis was aimed at a detailed study of scientific works of foreign and domestic researchers, articles, books and other sources of information related to the object of research - to clarify the current state of the problem, identify unresolved issues and determine directions for further research; case study - for analyzing a specific case, or a series of cases in the context of the study; formation of conclusions.

Results: the significance of adaptive testing in the educational process, which adapts to the needs of each learner, is highlighted. Its advantages and disadvantages are disclosed. Varieties of adaptive testing are identified: linear, computer-based, and combined. The importance of adaptive testing using artificial intelligence is highlighted. The requirements for the preparation of adaptive tests are considered, in particular the importance of evaluation criteria and complexity parameters. The importance of feedback from students and the need to review tests to maintain their relevance and validity are emphasized. The general safety rules when working with Google Forms and the importance of automatic grading of student responses are characterized. The process of analyzing student responses and displaying test results is defined. The possibilities of integrating Google Forms with educational platforms are considered. The advantages and limitations of using Google Forms for adaptive testing in general secondary education institutions are emphasized.

Conclusions: It is determined that adaptive testing is an important tool for deep analysis and creation of accurate complexity parameters of test questions. The need to implement feedback from students for continuous improvement of the testing process is emphasized. The importance of regular review and updating of tests to ensure their relevance is noted. Attention is drawn to taking into account the differentiation of questions by level of complexity, relevance to the learning context, and general educational goals.

Keywords

adaptive testing, Google Forms, feedback, evaluation criteria, automatic grading, general secondary education

pdf

References

  1. Almond, R. G., Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., Yan, D., & Williamson, D. M. (2015). Bayesian networks in educational assessment. Springer.
  2. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (2012). Classroom assessment techniques. Jossey Bass Wiley.
  3. Baraud, Y., Huet, S., & Laurent, B. (2003). Adaptive tests of linear hypotheses by model selection. The Annals of Statistics, 31(1), 225-251.
  4. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain Text.
  5. Blythe, J., & Camp, L. J. (2012, May). Implementing mental models. In 2012 IEEE symposium on Security and privacy workshops (pp. 86-90). IEEE.
  6. Buehler, M., Griffin, P., & Ross, M. (2007). A Self-Adaptive Algorithm for Context-Aware Ubiquitous Learning. In M. Pechenizkiy, T. Calders, C. Conati, S. Ventura, C. Romero, & J. Stamper (Eds.), Educational Data Mining 2011.
  7. Chen, B., & Bryer, T. (2012). Investigating instructional strategies for using social media in formal and informal learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 87-104.
  8. Cheng, B., Wang, M., Mørch, A. I., Chen, N. S., Kinshuk, & Spector, J. M. (2014). Research on E-Learning in the Workplace 2000–2012: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Literature. Educational Research Review, 11, 56–72.
  9. Choi, S. W., & Chung, H. (2020). Online learning environments in higher education: Connectivism vs. dissociation. Education and Information Technologies, 25(6), 5991–6010.
  10. Chrysafiadi, K., Troussas, C., & Virvou, M. (2018, October). A framework for creating automated online adaptive tests using multiple-criteria decision analysis. In 2018 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC) (pp. 226-231). IEEE.
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research designs: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Callifornia: Sage.
  12. Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological assessment, 8(4), 341.
  13. Furlong, M. J., Gilman, R., & Huebner, E. S. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of positive psychology in schools.
  14. Hadnagy, C. (2010). Social engineering: The art of human hacking. John Wiley & Sons.
  15. Hodges, C. B., Moore, S., Lockee, B. B., Trust, T., & Bond, M. A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning.
  16. Iftakhar, S. (2016). Google classroom: what works and how. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 3(1), 12-18.
  17. Jensen, F. V., & Nielsen, T. D. (2007). Bayesian networks and decision graphs (Vol. 2). New York: Springer.
  18. Leenes, R., & Lucivero, F. (2014). Laws on robots, laws by robots, laws in robots: Regulating robot behaviour by design. Law, Innovation and Technology, 6(2), 193-220.
  19. Magis, D., Yan, D., von Davier, A. A., Magis, D., Yan, D., & von Davier, A. A. (2017). An overview of computerized adaptive testing. Computerized Adaptive and Multistage Testing with R: Using Packages catR and mstR, 35-51.
  20. McCormick, A. C., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2013). Student engagement: Bridging research and practice to improve the quality of undergraduate education. In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research: Volume 28 (pp. 47-92). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  21. Medina-Díaz, M. D. R., & Verdejo-Carrión, A. L. (2020). Validity and reliability in student learning evaluation throughout active methodologies. ALTERIDAD. Revista de Educación, 15(2), 270-284.
  22. Miller, M. D., Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E., (2009). Measuring and Asssessment in Teaching (10th ed.) Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. NJ
  23. Moore, M. G. (Ed.). (2013). Handbook of distance education. Routledge.
  24. Noroozi, O., Banihashem, S. K., Biemans, H. J., Smits, M., Vervoort, M. T., & Verbaan, C. L. (2023). Design, implementation, and evaluation of an online supported peer feedback module to enhance students’ argumentative essay quality. Education and Information Technologies, 1-28.
  25. Proskura, S. L., & Lytvynova, S. H. (2020). The approaches to Web-based education of computer science bachelors in higher education institutions.
  26. Rasch, G. (1960). Studies in mathematical psychology: I. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests.
  27. Reise, S. P., & Revicki, D. A. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment. Routledge.
  28. Schäfer, M., Nadi, S., Eghbali, A., & Tip, F. (2023). Adaptive test generation using a large language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06527.
  29. Sclater, N., Peasgood, A., & Mullan, J. (2016). Learning analytics in higher education. London: Jisc. Accessed February, 8(2017), 176.
  30. Stone, C. A., & Zhang, B. (2003). Assessing goodness of fit of item response theory models: A comparison of traditional and alternative procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40(4), 331–352.
  31. Tess, P. A. (2013). The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual) – A literature review. Computers in human behavior, 29(5), A60-A68.
  32. Van der Linden, W. J. (2016). Unidimensional logistic response models. In Handbook of item response theory. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
  33. Walvoord, B. E. (2010). Assessment clear and simple: A practical guide for institutions, departments, and general education. John Wiley & Sons.
  34. Zhuang, Y., Liu, Q., Huang, Z., Li, Z., Shen, S., & Ma, H. (2022, June). Fully Adaptive Framework: Neural Computerized Adaptive Testing for Online Education. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 4734-4742).
  35. Ляшенко, О. І. (2019). Оцінювання навчальних досягнень учнів за допомогою адаптивного тестування. Освіта для миру= Edukacja dla pokoju, 1, 178-189.
  36. Ляшенко, О. І., Жук, Ю. О., Ващенко, Л. С., Гривко, А. В., & Науменко, С. О. (2017). Тестові технології оцінювання компетентностей учнів. https://undip.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/test_2017.pdf
  37. Радкевич, О. (2023). Еволюція електронних засобів внутрішнього контролю та оцінювання якості освіти: від початку до сучасності. Rozwój nowoczesnej edukacji i nauki–stan, poblemy, perspektywy, 115-127.
  38. Соменко, Д. В., Трифонова, О. М., & Садовий, М. І. (2023). Штучний інтелект та нейромережі в освітньому процесі: переваги та недоліки. актуальні проблеми та перспективи технологічної і професійної освіти, 78.
  39. Translated & Transliterated.
  40. Almond, R. G., Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., Yan, D., & Williamson, D. M. (2015). Bayesian networks in educational assessment. Springer. [in English].
  41. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (2012). Classroom assessment techniques. Jossey Bass Wiley. [in English].
  42. Baraud, Y., Huet, S., & Laurent, B. (2003). Adaptive tests of linear hypotheses by model selection. The Annals of Statistics, 31(1), 225-251. [in English].
  43. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain Text. [in English].
  44. Blythe, J., & Camp, L. J. (2012, May). Implementing mental models. In 2012 IEEE symposium on Security and privacy workshops (pp. 86-90). IEEE. [in English].
  45. Buehler, M., Griffin, P., & Ross, M. (2007). A Self-Adaptive Algorithm for Context-Aware Ubiquitous Learning. In M. Pechenizkiy, T. Calders, C. Conati, S. Ventura, C. Romero, & J. Stamper (Eds.), Educational Data Mining 2011. [in English].
  46. Chen, B., & Bryer, T. (2012). Investigating instructional strategies for using social media in formal and informal learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 87-104. [in English].
  47. Cheng, B., Wang, M., Mørch, A. I., Chen, N. S., Kinshuk, & Spector, J. M. (2014). Research on E-Learning in the Workplace 2000–2012: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Literature. Educational Research Review, 11, 56–72. [in English].
  48. Choi, S. W., & Chung, H. (2020). Online learning environments in higher education: Connectivism vs. dissociation. Education and Information Technologies, 25(6), 5991–6010. [in English].
  49. Chrysafiadi, K., Troussas, C., & Virvou, M. (2018, October). A framework for creating automated online adaptive tests using multiple-criteria decision analysis. In 2018 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC) (pp. 226-231). IEEE. [in English].
  50. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research designs: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Callifornia: Sage. [in English].
  51. Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological assessment, 8(4), 341. [in English].
  52. Furlong, M. J., Gilman, R., & Huebner, E. S. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of positive psychology in schools. [in English].
  53. Hadnagy, C. (2010). Social engineering: The art of human hacking. John Wiley & Sons. [in English].
  54. Hodges, C. B., Moore, S., Lockee, B. B., Trust, T., & Bond, M. A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. [in English].
  55. Iftakhar, S. (2016). Google classroom: what works and how. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 3(1), 12-18. [in English].
  56. Jensen, F. V., & Nielsen, T. D. (2007). Bayesian networks and decision graphs (Vol. 2). New York: Springer. [in English].
  57. Leenes, R., & Lucivero, F. (2014). Laws on robots, laws by robots, laws in robots: Regulating robot behaviour by design. Law, Innovation and Technology, 6(2), 193-220. [in English].
  58. Magis, D., Yan, D., von Davier, A. A., Magis, D., Yan, D., & von Davier, A. A. (2017). An overview of computerized adaptive testing. Computerized Adaptive and Multistage Testing with R: Using Packages catR and mstR, 35-51. [in English].
  59. McCormick, A. C., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2013). Student engagement: Bridging research and practice to improve the quality of undergraduate education. In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research: Volume 28 (pp. 47-92). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. [in English].
  60. Medina-Díaz, M. D. R., & Verdejo-Carrión, A. L. (2020). Validity and reliability in student learning evaluation throughout active methodologies. ALTERIDAD. Revista de Educación, 15(2), 270-284. [in English].
  61. Miller, M. D., Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E., (2009). Measuring and Asssessment in Teaching (10th ed.) Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. NJ [in English].
  62. Moore, M. G. (Ed.). (2013). Handbook of distance education. Routledge. [in English].
  63. Noroozi, O., Banihashem, S. K., Biemans, H. J., Smits, M., Vervoort, M. T., & Verbaan, C. L. (2023). Design, implementation, and evaluation of an online supported peer feedback module to enhance students’ argumentative essay quality. Education and Information Technologies, 1-28. [in English].
  64. Proskura, S. L., & Lytvynova, S. H. (2020). The approaches to Web-based education of computer science bachelors in higher education institutions. [in English].
  65. Rasch, G. (1960). Studies in mathematical psychology: I. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. [in English].
  66. Reise, S. P., & Revicki, D. A. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment. Routledge. [in English].
  67. Schäfer, M., Nadi, S., Eghbali, A., & Tip, F. (2023). Adaptive test generation using a large language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06527. [in English].
  68. Sclater, N., Peasgood, A., & Mullan, J. (2016). Learning analytics in higher education. London: Jisc. Accessed February, 8(2017), 176. [in English].
  69. Stone, C. A., & Zhang, B. (2003). Assessing goodness of fit of item response theory models: A comparison of traditional and alternative procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40(4), 331–352. [in English].
  70. Tess, P. A. (2013). The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual)–A literature review. Computers in human behavior, 29(5), A60-A68. [in English].
  71. Van der Linden, W. J. (2016). Unidimensional logistic response models. In Handbook of item response theory (pp. 41-58). Chapman and Hall/CRC. [in English].
  72. Walvoord, B. E. (2010). Assessment clear and simple: A practical guide for institutions, departments, and general education. John Wiley & Sons. [in English].
  73. Zhuang, Y., Liu, Q., Huang, Z., Li, Z., Shen, S., & Ma, H. (2022, June). Fully Adaptive Framework: Neural Computerized Adaptive Testing for Online Education. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 4734-4742). [in English].
  74. Lyashenko, O.I. (2019). Otsinyuvannia navchalnykh dosiahnen uchniv za dopomohoiu adaptivnoho testuvannia [Assessment of students' achievements using adaptive testing]. Osvita dlia myru=Edukacja dla pokoju, 1, 178-189, [in Ukrainian].
  75. Lyashenko, O. I., Zhuk, Yu. O., Vashchenko, L. S., Hryvko, A. V., & Naumenko, S. O. (2017). Testovi tekhnolohii otsiniuvannia kompetentnostei uchniv [Test technologies for assessing students' competencies]. https://undip.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/test_2017.pdf [in Ukrainian].
  76. Radkevych, O. (2023). Evolutsiia elektronnykh zasobiv vnutrishnoho kontrolu ta otsiniuvannia yakosti osvity: vid pochatku do suchasnosti [Evolution of electronic tools for internal control and assessment of education quality: from the beginning to the present]. Rozwój nowoczesnej edukacji i nauki–stan, poblemy, perspektywy, 115-127, [in Ukrainian].
  77. Somenko, D.V., Tryfonova, O.M., & Sadovyi, M.I. (2023). Shtuchnyi intelekt ta neiro merezhi v osvitnomu protsesi: perevahy ta nedoliky [Artificial intelligence and neural networks in the educational process: advantages and disadvantages]. Aktualni problemy ta perspektyvy tekhnolohichnoi i profesiinoi osvity [Actual problems and prospects of technological and vocational education], 78, [in Ukrainian].

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 > >>