skip to main content
10.1145/3284179.3284207acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesteemConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Development and use of mobile technologies that foster students' evaluative judgement: a design-based research

Published:24 October 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Considering the importance of the digital aspects of our society, we must rely on the opportunities offered by technology for improving assessment. This paper presents a study that indicates the development and use of mobile technologies in participatory assessment processes, with the intention of encouraging students' critical and evaluative judgement. For this, design-based research [1] is used to follow a mixed intervention design, in which assessment as learning and empowerment (student participation and feedback) will be put into practice through the use of mobile technologies. The sample will be composed of 1,065 students on different Bachelor's and Master's degree courses at three public universities in Spain. The study sets out to demonstrate the value added by Technology-Enhanced Assessment (TEA) to the emerging field of mobile learning, as well as its contribution to the development of students' evaluative judgement.

References

  1. Terry Anderson and Julie Shattuck. 2012. Design-Based Research: A decade of progress in education research. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. María Soledad Ibarra-Sáiz and Gregorio Rodríguez-Gómez. 2014. Modalidades participativas de evaluación: Un análisis de la percepción del profesorado y de los estudiantes universitarios. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 32 (2), 339--361.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Tamsin Haggis. 2003. Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into 'approaches to learning' research in higher education. British Educational Research Journal 29(1),89--104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. David Boud and Associates. 2010. Assessment 2020: Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching CouncilGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Xiongyi Liu and Lan Li. 2014. Assessment training effects on student assessment skills and task performance in a technology-facilitated peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39, 275--292.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Margaret Price, Chris Rust, Berry O'Donovan, Karen Handley and Rebecca Bryant. 2012. Assessment literacy: The Foundation for Improving Student Learning. OCSLD: Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Christine Redecker and Oystein Johannessen. 2013. Changing assessment--- Towards a new assessment paradigm using ICT. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 79--96.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. University of Reading. 2018. Engage in Assessment Introducing Technology Enhanced Assessment. Retrieved june 13, 2018 from https://www.reading.ac.uk/engageinassessment/using-technology/eia-introducing-technology-enhanced-assessment.aspxGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. David Boud. 2000. Sustainable assessment rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in continuing education, 22 (2), 151--167.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Gregorio Rodríguez-Gómez and María Soledad Ibarra-Sáiz. 2015. Assessment as Learning and Empowerment: Beyond Sustainable Learning in Higher Education. In Marta Peris-Ortiz, & José María Merigó Lindahl (Eds.), Sustainable learning in higher education, innovation, technology, and knowledge management. (pp. 1-20). London: Springer-Verlag.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. John Cowan. 2010. Developing the ability for making evaluative judgements. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(3), 323--334.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Joanna Tai, Rola Ajjawi, David Boud, Phillip Dawson, and Ernesto Panadero. 2017. Developing evaluative judgement: enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education, pp. 1--15. Springer Netherlands.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Joanna Tai, Benedict Canny, Terry Haines, and Elizabeth Molloy. 2016. The role of peer-assisted learning in building evaluative judgement: opportunities in clinical medical education. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21(3), 659.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. David Boud and Nancy Falchikov. 2006. Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399--413.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. David Boud and Rebeca Soler. 2016. Sustainable assessment revisited, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 400--413.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. David Carless, Kennedy Chan, Jessica To, Margaret Lo and Elizabeth Barrett. 2018. Developing students' capacities for evaluative judgement through analysing exemplars. In David Boud, Rola Ajjawi, Phillip Dawson and Joanna Tai (Eds), Developing Evaluative Judgement in Higher Education: Assessment for knowing and producing quality work. London: Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall Giesinger, C., and Ananthanarayanan, V. 2017. NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Myke Sharples, Josie Taylor and Giasemi Vavoula. 2006. A Theory of Learning for the Mobile Age. In R. Andrews and C. Haythornthwaite, The Sage Handbook of Elearning Research, (pp.221-247). Sage publications (hal-00190276)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Marguerite Koole. 2009. A Model for Framing Mobile Learning. In M. Ally (ed.), Mobile Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training. Edmonton.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. EVALfor Research Group -- Assessment and Evaluation in Formative Contexts.University of Cadiz and University of Seville. http://evalfor.netGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. http://evalcomix.uca.esGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. John Creswell. 2015. A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA, EE. UU: SAGEGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Gregorio Rodríguez, Javier Gil and Eduardo García. 1999. Metodología de la Investigación Cualitativa.. Archidona, MA: Aljibe.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Development and use of mobile technologies that foster students' evaluative judgement: a design-based research

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        TEEM'18: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality
        October 2018
        1072 pages
        ISBN:9781450365185
        DOI:10.1145/3284179

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 24 October 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        TEEM'18 Paper Acceptance Rate151of243submissions,62%Overall Acceptance Rate496of705submissions,70%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)13
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader