Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Automating student assessment using digital data to improve education management effectiveness in higher education institutions

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objectives of this work are to investigate the impact of automating the student assessment process using the Schoology web-based learning management system as an example and determine its effectiveness and usability by performing a comparative analysis between the survey results of educators and students. The research methodology is based on an exploratory survey using a data collection questionnaire composed of closed-ended questions. The respondents are 630 students and 159 faculty members from three Chinese higher education institutions. The data analysis enables the conclusion that the overall student and faculty satisfaction with Schoology is high (83.4% and 55%, respectively). The students and educators indicate that with the introduction of Schoology, learning and teaching became easier (82.5% and 53.4%, respectively). In line with this, the analysis of the effect of the automated performance assessment implementation on student academic performance find that learners are more prone to better learning outcomes after this system’s launching. The practical significance of this paper is that it demonstrates the positive influence of the Schoology system on educational process effectiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data will be available on request.

References

  • Alrashidi, H., Almujally, N., Ullmann, T. D., & Joy, M. (2022). Evaluating an automated analysis using machine learning and natural language processing approaches to classify computer science students’ reflective writing. In Second International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Social Networking, 3–4 Mar 2022 (pp. 1–20). Salem, India.

  • Arndt, T., & Guercio, A. (2013). Evaluating student attitudes on ubiquitous e-learning. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Mobile Ubiquitous Computing, Systems, Services and Technologies (pp. 98–101). Cleveland State University.

  • Ball, S., Goodson, I., & Maguire, M. (2013). Education, Globalisation and New Times. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg, M., Olsson, T., Franke, U., & Assar, S. (2018). Digitalization of Swedish government agencies-a perspective through the lens of a software development census. In 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS) (pp. 37–46). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1145/3183428.3183434

  • Brown, S., & Glasner, A. (1999). Assessment matters in higher education: Choosing and using diverse approaches. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

  • Castro, R. (2019). Blended learning in higher education: Trends and capabilities. Education and Information Technologies, 24(4), 2523–2546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09886-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciolacu, M., Tehrani, A. F., Binder, L., & Svasta, P. M. (2018). Education 4.0-Artificial Intelligence assisted higher education: early recognition system with machine learning to support students’ success. In 2018 IEEE 24th International Symposium for Design and Technology in Electronic Packaging (SIITME) (pp. 23–30). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIITME.2018.8599203

  • Coccoli, M., Stanganelli, L., & Maresca, P. (2011). Computer supported collaborative learning in software engineering. In 2011 IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON) (pp. 990–995). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2011.5773267

  • Common Sense Education (2020). Schoology. Free LMS for digital classrooms packed with possibilities Retrieved 15 October 2022 from https://www.commonsense.org/education/website/schoology

  • Coccoli, M., Guerciob, A., Marescac, P., & Stanganelli, L. (2014). Smarter universities: A vision for the fast changing digital era. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 25, 1003–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2014.09.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., & Searsmith, D. (2021). Artificial intelligence for education: Knowledge and its assessment in AI-enabled learning ecologies. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 53(12), 1229–1245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1728732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, T. H. (2010). Process management for knowledge work. In J. vom Brocke & M. Rosemann (Eds.), Handbook on Business Process Management 1 (2nd ed., pp. 17–35). Heidelberg: Springer Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45100-3_2

  • Engelbrecht, J., & Harding, A. (2005). Teaching undergraduate mathematics on the internet. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58(2), 253–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-6457-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, M., Kruschwitz, N., Bonnet, D., & Welch, M. (2014). Embracing digital technology: A new strategic imperative. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(1), 3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, H. (2012). Numerical indigestion: how much data is really good for us? Impact of Social Sciences Blog. Retrieved 15 October 2022 from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/72541/

  • Goularte, F. B., Nassar, S. M., Fileto, R., & Saggion, H. (2019). A text summarization method based on fuzzy rules and applicable to automated assessment. Expert Systems with Applications, 115, 264–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.07.047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, D., Hoffmann, A. L., & Stark, L. (2019). Better, nicer, clearer, fairer: A critical assessment of the movement for ethical artificial intelligence and machine learning. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 2122–2131). HICCS.

  • Hansson, H. (2014). How to produce quality theses at universities in a large scale: SciPro IT system—Supporting the Scientific Process. In 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings (pp. 1–1). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2014.7044383

  • Hashim, A. S., & Ahmad, W. F. W. (2012). The development of new conceptual model for MobileSchool. In 2012 Sixth UKSim/AMSS European Symposium on Computer Modeling and Simulation (pp. 517–522). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMS.2012.92

  • Ignatova, N. Y. (2017). Education in the digital age: monograph Nizhniy Tagil.

  • Kuriakose, R., & Luwesa, N. (2016). Student perceptions to the use of paperless technology in assessments – a case study using clickers. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 228, 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagstedt, A., Lindstedt, J., & Kauppinen, R. (2020). An outcome of expert-oriented digitalization of university processes. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 5853–5871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10252-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lingard, B., Creagh, S., & Vass, G. (2012). Education policy as numbers: Data categories and two australian cases of misrecognition. Journal of Education Policy, 27(3), 315–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2011.605476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, R., & Koedinger, K. R. (2017). Closing the loop: Automated data-driven cognitive model discoveries lead to improved instruction and learning gains. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 9(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3554625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Low, D. M., Bentley, K. H., & Ghosh, S. S. (2020). Automated assessment of psychiatric disorders using speech: A systematic review. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, 5(1), 96–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.354.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Moussavi, R., Gobert, J., & Sao Pedro, M. (2016). The effect of scaffolding on the immediate transfer of students’ data interpretation skills within science topics. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 1002–1005), Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.22318/icls2016.157

  • Oldfield, A., Broadfoot, P., Sutherland, R., & Timmis, S. (2012). Assessment in a Digital Age: A research review. Technology Enhanced Assessment.

  • Pellegrino, J. W., & Quellmalz, E. S. (2010). Perspectives on the integration of technology and assessment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(2), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pihir, I., Tomičić-Pupek, K., & Furjan, M. T. (2018). Digital transformation insights and trends. In Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems (pp. 141–149). Faculty of Organization and Informatics Varazdin.

  • Sao Pedro, M., Jiang, Y., Paquette, L., & Baker, R. S. (2014). Identifying transfer of inquiry skills across physical science simulations using educational data mining. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 222–229). Boulder, CO. International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Serhani, M. A., Bouktif, S., Al-Qirim, N., & El Kassabi, H. T. (2019). Automated system for evaluating higher education programs. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5), 3107–3128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09910-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L. (2000). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. CSE Technical Report 517 The Regents of the University of California

  • Shute, V. J., Dennen, V., Kim, Y., Donmez, O., & Wang, C. (2010). 21st century assessment to promote 21st century learning: The benefits of blinking. A report for Digital Media and Learning network Unpublished manuscript, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

  • Siemens, G., & Long, P. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. Educause, 46(5), 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G., & Wood, L. (2000). Assessment of learning in university mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(1), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/002073900287444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surgenor, P. (2010). Teaching toolkit. Role of Assessment. Dublin, İrlanda: University College Dublin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walvoord, B. E. (2010). Assessment clear and simple: A practical guide for institutions, departments, and general education. John Wiley & Sons.

  • Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wuxi Institute of Technology, Wuxi, China

    Chun Liu

Authors
  1. Chun Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chun Liu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

This research has no conflict of interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, C. Automating student assessment using digital data to improve education management effectiveness in higher education institutions. Educ Inf Technol 29, 1885–1901 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11898-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11898-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation