آسیب‌شناسی ارزشیابی تکوینی در نظام یادگیری الکترونیکی ایران: واکاوی پدیدارشناسانه دیدگاه‌های اساتید

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانش‌آموخته دکتری، گروه علوم‌تربیتی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.

2 دانشیار، گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.

3 استاد، گروه علوم‌تربیتی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران.

4 استادیار، گروه علوم‌تربیتی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.

10.22034/trj.2023.62814

چکیده

هدف: ارزشیابی تکوینی آن نوع ارزشیابی است که با هدف کمک به یادگیری و به‌صورت مستمر، گام به گام، و در طول فرایند یاددهی – یادگیری صورت می ­گیرد. پژوهش حاضر با هدف شناسایی آسیب ­های ارزشیابی تکوینی در نظام یادگیری الکترونیکی ایران انجام گرفت.
روش: این پژوهش به لحاظ هدف، کاربردی و به لحاظ نحوه گردآوری اطلاعات از نوع کیفی بود. شرکت­ کنندگان در پژوهش شامل اساتید مراکز یادگیری الکترونیکی بود که 13 نفر از آن­ ها با استفاده از روش نمونه­ گیری هدفمند به‌عنوان نمونه پژوهش انتخاب شدند. ابزار گردآوری داده­ ها نیز مصاحبه نیمه ­ساختارمند بود. همچنین جهت تجزیه‌وتحلیل داده ­ها از روش کدگذاری تحلیل مضمون استفاده گردید.
یافته­ها: یافته ­های پژوهش نشان داد که از نظر اساتید مراکز یادگیری الکترونیکی، ارزشیابی تکوینی در نظام یادگیری الکترونیکی ایران دارای 8 آسیب و ضعف اصلی است که عبارت‌اند از: عدم استفاده از ابزارهای مختلف ارزشیابی تکوینی، بازخورددهی و بازخوردگیری نامناسب، عدم امکان احراز هویت دانشجویان، ضعف در ارائه ­های کلاسی، طراحی ضعیف تمرین­ ها و پروژه ­ها، ضعف در آزمون ­های آنلاین، ضعف در بحث و تبادل ­نظر، و ضعف در گزارش ­دهی. بنابراین دانشگاه ­ها و مراکز آموزش الکترونیکی می­ بایست به ارزشیابی تکوینی به‌عنوان یک عامل مهم در توسعه یادگیرندگان و اساتید توجه کنند و همواره در جهت به ­روزرسانی و رفع آسیب ­ها و ضعف­ های سیستم­ های مدیریت یادگیری و بخصوص در زمینه ارزشیابی تکوینی اقدام نمایند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Pathology of Formative Assessment In Iranian E-Learning System: Phenomenological Examination of Professors' Views

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hamed Abbasi Kasani 1
  • Gholamreza Shams Mourkani 2
  • Farhad Seraji 3
  • morteza rezaeizadeh 4
1 PhD, Department of Educational Science, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate Professor, Department of Educational Science, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Professor, Curriculum Planning, Department of Educational Science, Bu Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran.
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Science, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

One of the most important processes in any type of educational system, especially e-learning system, is the assessment process, the purpose of which is to determine if educational goals have been achieved. Assessment is important in that it has a huge impact on learning (Buyukkarci & Sahinkarakas, 2021) and requires feedback for continuous improvement. Assessment in e-learning can be both formative and summative, or combined (Kear et al., 2016; Dlab, Katic & Candrlic, 2015; Snae, Brueckner, & Hirata, 2008). Marriott (2009) uses the terms "assessment of learning" and "assessment for learning " to distinguish between these two types of e-assessment. While the former emphasizes assessment at the end of the learning process (summative assessment) which aims to determine the amount of learning by the learner (Torres, 2019; Kear et al., 2016; Azmi & Kankarej, 2015), while the latter, being gradual and ongoing, refers to the continuous process of assessment (formative assessment) (Yan et al, 2021; Azmi & Kankarej, 2015). Formative assessment is one of the measures to promote learning (Ferreira, Martinsone & Talić, 2020; Elson, 2016; Bijol, Byrne-Dugan, & Hoenig, 2015) and to ensure the quality of distance learning and e-learning (Ming-Li & Dan, 2010). Through providing feedback on performance, it can also dramatically affect motivation, interest, commitment, intellectual challenge, and autonomy, and responsibility as well (Buyukkarci & Sahinkarakas, 2021; Bhattacharya & Coombs, 2017; Townsend & Mulvey, 2016).
According to the above, in order to ensure the students' learning and achieve the desired goals, measurement and assessment are necessary, and what is important in the assessment of learners in e-learning is to have the approach of "assessment for learning" or formative assessment. Because the purpose of formative assessment is to correct and improve the existing situation. This means that in the process of formative assessment, one can recognize the weak and strong points and make decisions based on them. E-learning in the field of assessment, especially formative assessment, has not progressed as expected and little attention has been paid to the importance of assessment in this field, and this has caused damage in this field that may affect the quality of learning. The purpose of this study was to investigate the pathology of formative assessment in the Iranian e-learning system. The method of this research was applied in terms of purpose and qualitative in terms of how to collect information. The research paradigm was also interpretive. According to this paradigm, reality is conditioned by human experience and interpretation. The research methods in this perspective include case study, phenomenology, ethnography and historical research (Bazargan, 2015). In this study, the phenomenological method was used. The phenomenology method is one of the qualitative research methods that investigates the views, feelings, and experiences of the sample group in relation to a certain phenomenon or phenomena (Creswell, 2014). Since the professors of e-learning centers have the most connection with the learning management system and use it continuously, these people have more and better knowledge about the learning management system. Therefore, participants in the study included professors of e-learning centers, 13 of whom were selected as the research sample using the available purposive sampling method. In purposive sampling, the researcher continues the work until reaches theoretical saturation. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data. According to Guba & Lincoln (1982), validity and reliability verification in qualitative research includes four criteria of credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability. In the current research, validity and reliability were checked based on these four criteria. Content analysis was also used to analyze the data.
Findings showed that according to the professors of e-learning centers, formative assessment in the Iranian e-learning system has 8 main weaknesses, which are: Non-use of different formative assessment tools (Consist of: Limitation of assessment methods and tools, Time consuming questions and answers, Limiting the assessment to the final assessment), Weakness in feedback (Consist of: Failure to provide appropriate feedback by professors, Failure to provide appropriate feedback by students, Failure to provide timely feedback, Not allocating enough time by professors for feedback, Lengthening the feedback process), Impossibility of student authentication (Consist of: Not knowing the participants), Weakness in class presentations (Consist of: Time limit in reviewing class presentations, Lack of two-way interactions in class presentations), Poor design of exercises and projects (Consist of: Buy projects and articles, Failure to provide enough exercises by professors), Weakness in online exams (Consist of: Little use of online tests, The possibility of cheating in online tests, Lack of control over online tests, Failure to measure all levels of learning, Failure to use the facilities of the learning management system in the field of online exams, The lack of different online test design software in the learning management system), Weakness in discussion and exchange (Consist of: Non-participation of all students in discussions, Non-continuous participation of professors in discussions, Lack of discussion management, Not summarizing the discussions, Not using different media in discussions, Failure to measure students' participation in discussions), Weak reporting (Consist of: Failure to report properly, Impossibility of recording and reporting all assessments). Therefore, in order to improve the quality of formative assessment and student learning, these weaknesses should be considered and steps should be taken to improve the current situation.
In this regard, the following suggestions have been made to improve the state of formative assessment in the electronic learning management systems of the country:

Considering the technological advances and also conducting such researches that are carried out in the country, it is suggested that e-learning centers and universities always pay attention to updating their learning management systems, especially in the field of formative assessment.
Some of the weaknesses of learning management systems in the field of formative assessment are related to professors. Therefore, for the correct implementation of formative assessment in electronic environments, the necessary training in the form of seminars, workshops, etc. should be provided to the professors.
It is suggested that universities and e-learning centers pay attention to formative assessment as an important factor in the development of learners and professors and provide the necessary grounds for its establishment as best as possible.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Formative Assessment
  • Iranian E-Learning System
  • Phenomenology
  • Professors
Abbasi Kasani, H., Haji Zeynalgabedini, M., & Raisi, A. (2018). Pathology of University of Medical Sciences e-learning system based on Khan Model. The Journal of Medical Education and Development (JMED), 12(4), 227-238 (In Persian).
Abbasi Kasani, H., Shams Mourkani, G.H., Seraji, F., & Rezaeizadeh, M. (2021). Evaluation in e-learning: What, why, how. Development Strategies in Medical Education, 8(1), 80-92 (In Persian).
Albano, G., Capuano, N., & Pierri, A. (2017). Adaptive Peer Grading and Formative Assessment. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society13(1).‏
Aljamal, A., Cader, H., Chiemeke, C., & Speece, M. (2015). Empirical assessment of e-learning on performance in principles of economics. International Review of Economics Education18, 37-48.‏
Azmi, F. M., & Kankarej, M. M. (2015). The role of formative assessment in teaching mathematics. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference for e-learning and Distance Education, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.‏
Baker, J. P., Goodboy, A. K., Bowman, N. D., & Wright, A. A. (2018). Does teaching with PowerPoint increase students' learning? A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 126, 376-387.
Bazargan, A. (1394). Introduction to qualitative and mixed research methods. Tehran: Didar Publishing (In Persian).
Bhattacharya, M., & Coombs, S. (2017). How to enable student formative learning and assessment: Formalytics for learning enhancement. In Proceedings of Innovation Arabia 10, Dubai.
Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2008). The effects of multimedia-supported problem-based inquiry on student engagement, empathy, and assumptions about history. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning2(1), 21-56.
Butler, A. C., Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger III, H. L. (2007). The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13(4), 273.
Buyukkarci, K., & Sahinkarakas, S. (2021). The Impact of Formative Assessment on Students’ Assessment Preferences. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 21(1).‏
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students' questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of research in Science Teaching47(7), 883-908.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications.
Da Silva, L. F. C., Barbosa, M. W., & Gomes, R. R. (2019). Measuring participation in distance education online discussion forums using social network analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(2), 140-150.
Dehnavi, M. K., Sharafi, S. M., & Nematbakhsh, N. (2011). Developing an e-learning model for tracking the continuous attendance of the students. Journal of Theoretical & Applied Information Technology, 24(1).
Dlab, M. H., Katic, M. A., & Candrlic, S. (2015). Ensuring formative assessment in e-course with online tests. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE) (pp. 322-327). IEEE.‏
Dolati, A.A., Jamshidi, L., & Amin Bidokhti, A.A. (2015). Improving the teaching- learning process smart schools from an evaluation perspective. Teaching and Learning Studies, 7(2), 1/69, 1-20 (In Persian).
Elson, J. S. (2016). Formative assessment in an online asynchronous learning environment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska Omaha, Nebraska.
Farhangi, A.A., Yazdani, H., & Haghshenas, M. (2018). Identification of Learning Management Systems Functional Areas and Limitations (Case Study: E-Learning Center of University of Tehran). Journal of Information Technology Management, 10(2), 331-354 (In Persian).
Fenu, G., Marras, M., & Boratto, L. (2018). A multi-biometric system for continuous student authentication in e-learning platforms. Pattern Recognition Letters, 113, 83-92.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30(4), 233-252.
Habibi, H., Aghapoor, B., Fatemi, M., Khodayari, S., Damirchi, A., & Rahimi, A. (2016). Pathological approach to electronic tests in Iran (Case Study IBT TOEFL). Quarterly of Educational Measurement, 6(24), 145-170 (In Persian).
Haghighi, F., Farajollahi, M., & Norozzadeh, R. (2013). Open and Distance Universities Measurement System. Tehran: Awai Noor (In Persian).
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Hatziapostolou, T., & Paraskakis, I. (2010). Enhancing the Impact of Formative Feedback on Student Learning through an Online Feedback System. Electronic Journal of E-learning8(2), 111-122.
Hill, A., Arford, T., Lubitow, A., & Smollin, L. M. (2012). “I’m Ambivalent about It” The Dilemmas of PowerPoint. Teaching Sociology, 40(3), 242-256.
Huang, W., Yen, D. C., Lin, Z. X., & Huang, J. H. (2004). How to Compete in a Global Education Market Effectively? A Conceptual Framework for Designing a Next Generation eEducation System. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 12(2), 84-107.
Kaur, N., Prasad, P. W. C., Alsadoon, A., Pham, L., & Elchouemi, A. (2016, November). An enhanced model of biometric authentication in E-Learning: Using a combination of biometric features to access E-Learning environments. In 2016 International Conference on Advances in Electrical, Electronic and Systems Engineering (ICAEES) (pp. 138-143). IEEE.
Kc, D. (2017). Evaluation of Moodle Features at Kajaani University of Applied Sciences–Case Study. Procedia computer science116, 121-128.
Kear, K., Rosewell, J., Williams, K., Ossiannilsson, E., Rodrigo, C., Sánchez-Elvira Paniagua, Á., & Mellar, H. (2016). Quality assessment for e-learning: A benchmarking approach.‏
Kearns, L. R. (2012). Student assessment in online learning: Challenges and effective practices. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(3), 198.‏
Khalifeh, Gh., & Razavi, S. A. (2012). Quality Assurance and Evaluation in Electronic Learning Using the Importance-Performance Analysis Model. Media, 3(1), 33-44 (In Persian).
King, C. G., Guyette Jr, R. W., & Piotrowski, C. (2009). Online exams and cheating: An empirical analysis of business students' views. Journal of Educators Online, 6(1), n1.
Ma, Y., Friel, C., & Xing, W. (2014). Instructional activities in a discussion board forum of an e-leaning management system. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 112-116). Springer, Cham.
Marriott, P. (2009). Students' evaluation of the use of online summative assessment on an undergraduate financial accounting module. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 237-254.
Ming-Li, L., & Dan, M. (2010). The method of learning formative assessment in distance education. In Educational and Information Technology (ICEIT), 2010 International Conference on (3, pp. V3-113). IEEE.‏
Pleva, M., Bours, P., Hladek, D., & Juhar, J. (2016). Using current biometrics technologies for authentication in e-learning assessment. In 2016 International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA) (pp. 269-274). IEEE.
Poordavood, M., Usefzadeh, M., Katueian Javadi, R., & Ahghar, G. (2020). Identify the features of curriculum basic elements based on Steiner model (A mixed research). Research in Teaching, 8(4), 12-1 (In Persian).
Rabuzin, K., Baca, M., & Sajko, M. (2006). E-learning: Biometrics as a Security Factor. In Computing in the Global Information Technology, 2006. ICCGI'06. International Multi-Conference on (pp. 64-64). IEEE.‏
Roshani Ali bena see, H., Fathi Vajargah, K., & Khorasani, A. (2017). The Challenges of the Quality Evaluation of Virtual Education Curriculum: The Case of Shahid Beheshti University. Educational Measurement and Evaluation Studies, 7(18), 29-52 (In Persian).
Sari, M. S., Sunarmi, Sulasmi, E. S., & Mawaddah, K. (2019). Formative assessment in project-based learning: Supporting alternative on the learning outcome of biology students in university. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2120, No. 1, p. 060009). AIP Publishing LLC.
Scully, D. (2017). Constructing multiple-choice items to measure higher-order thinking. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 22(1), 4.
Shaul, M. (2008). Assessing online discussion forum participation. In Information Communication Technologies: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 1459-1467). IGI Global.
Sheela, M. I. M. I., & Nimako, E. (2020). A Study on the Major Phenomenon Surrounding Biometric Authentication in E-Learning. Studies in Indian Place Names, 40(53), 41-45.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research78(1), 153-189.
Skinner, D. (2004). The homework wars. Public Interest, (154), 49.
Taha, M. (2014). Investigating the success of E-learning in secondary schools: The case of the Kingdom of Bahrain, Doctoral dissertation of Philosophy and awarded by Brunel University.
Tella, A., & Adu, E. O. (2014). An assessment of the undergraduates’ participation in the online discussion forum. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(7), 333-333.
Torres, J. O. (2019). Positive impact of utilizing more formative assessment over summative assessment in the EFL/ESL Classroom. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 9(1), 1-11.‏
Townsend, S., & Mulvey, B. (2016). Formative assessment via online quizzes in the EFL classroom: An ICT pilot teaching program. assessment.‏
Yan, Z., Li, Z., Panadero, E., Yang, M., Yang, L., & Lao, H. (2021). A systematic review on factors influencing teachers’ intentions and implementations regarding formative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 1-33.‏
Zamani, B., Parhizi, R., & Kaviani, H. (2015). Identify Challenges of Evaluating Students' Academic Performance E-Courses. Technology of Education Journal (TEJ), 9(2), 105-112 (In Persian).
Zareisaroukolaei, M., Shams, G., Rezaeizadeh, M., & Ghahremani, M. (2020). Determinants of e-learning effectiveness: A qualitative study on the instructor. Research in Teaching, 8(2), 79-55 (In Persian).
Zareisaroukolaei, M., Shams, G., Rezaeizadeh, M., & Ghahremani, M. (2020). Determinants of e-learning effectiveness: A qualitative study on the instructor. Research in Teaching, 8(2), 79-55 (In Persian).
Zeki, K. A. Y. A., & Seref, T. A. N. (2014). New trends of measurement and assessment in distance education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 206-217.
Zhu, M., Liu, O. L., & Lee, H. S. (2020). The effect of automated feedback on revision behavior and learning gains in formative assessment of scientific argument writing. Computers & Education143, 103668.