Innovative Approaches to Assessment in Pedagogical Practice:
New Technologies, Methods and Development of Objective Assessment Tools
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14571/brajets.v16.n2.386-398Palavras-chave:
higher education, student, educational process, pedagogical assessmentResumo
O trabalho acadêmico considera e fundamenta a avaliação pedagógica por meio da aplicação de tecnologias modernas como um tipo especial de interação entre os sujeitos do processo educacional que visa medir as características significativas da atividade de um aluno no curso de resolução de tarefas e situações-problema, processando e analisando o recebido informação pedagógica e avaliação final. O modelo de avaliação pedagógica baseado no uso de tecnologias modernas está focado em resolver os problemas de objetivar o processo de medição, ampliar a base de informações da avaliação, criar condições para a formação de atividades de aprendizagem, incluindo atividades de avaliação, integrando funções de monitoria e ensino, individualizando funções pedagógicas avaliação ao nível das actividades de aprendizagem individual. O modelo é desenhado nos princípios de integração do lado sujeito-objeto da avaliação; otimização da profundidade do critério; perspectiva temporal; binaridade; segurança psicológica; unidade das atividades de avaliação e aprendizagem e individualização em relação ao aluno. Inclui os módulos básicos: avaliação baseada em critérios, gestão da transmissão da avaliação pedagógica (com um componente de informação de dois componentes – objeto-sujeito e sujeito-sujeito), e um módulo para processar os resultados primários da medição das atividades de aprendizagem dos alunos e visualizando seus resultados. As condições organizacionais e pedagógicas para a implementação do modelo são as seguintes: integridade funcional da informação e suporte de software; prontidão dos professores para utilizar a avaliação pedagógica através da aplicação de ferramentas informáticas; adequação de documentos normativos, atos locais da instituição de ensino e protocolos de interação dos serviços, que oportunizam o uso de sistemas de avaliação; criação de um sistema de motivação que estimule a promoção de uma formação orientada para a personalidade na equipa docente.Referências
Andrade, H., Bennett, R. and Cizek, G. (2019). Handbook of Formative Assessment in the Disciplines.
Aragón, O. R., Eddy, S. L., & Graham, M. J. (2018). Faculty beliefs about intelligence are related to the adoption of active-learning practices. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 17(3), ar47. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-05-0084
Baida, I., Mironov, V., & Miatenko, N. (2022). Motyvatsiia do samonavchannia yak umova formuvannia profesiinykh kompetentsii. [Motivation for Self-learning as a Condition for the Professional Competencies Formation]. Tsyfrova platforma: informatsiini tekhnolohii v sotsiokulturnii sferi - Digital Platform: Information Technologies in Sociocultural Sphere, 5(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.31866/2617-796X.5.1.2022.261283. (in Ukrainian).
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning – a new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672
Bensimon, E. M. (2020). The case for an anti-racist stance toward paying off higher education's racial debt. Change, 52(2), 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2020.1732752.
Bikov, V. Yu. (2008). Modelі organіzatsіynikh sistem vіdkritoї osvіti: monografіya [Models of organizational systems of open education: monograph]. K.: Atіka - monograph. K.: Attica. 250 р. (in Ukrainian).
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning, Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.
Bovill, C. (2020). Co-creation in learning and teaching: The case for a whole-class approach in higher education. Higher Education, 79(1), 1023–1037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00453-w
Castle, S. R., and McGuire, C. J. (2010). An analysis of student self-assessment of online, blended, and face-to-face learning environments: Implications for sustainable education delivery. Int. Edu. Stud. 3(3), 36–40. https://doi:10.5539/ies.v3n3p36
David, J. Nicol, & Debra Macfarlane‐Dick, (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice, Studies in Higher Education, 31:2, 199-218. DOI: 10.1080/03075070600572090
Davies, E. B., Morriss, R., & Glazebrook, C. (2014). Computer-delivered and web-based interventions to improve depression, anxiety, and psychological wellbeing of university students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of medical Internet research, 16(5), e130
Dobroskok, І. І., Kotsur, V. P., Nikitchyna, S. O. (et al.). (2008). Innovatsiini pedahohichni tekhnolohiyi: teoriya ta praktyka vykorystannya u vyshchiy shkoli :monohrafiya [Innovative pedagogical technologies: theory and practice of use in higher school]. Pereiaslav-Khmelnytsk: S. V. Karpuk, 284 p.(in Ukrainian).
Esposito, J., Lee, T., Limes-Taylor Henderson, K., Mason, A., Outler, A, Rodriguez Jackson, J., Washington, R., & Whitaker-Lea, L. (2017). Doctoral students’ experiences with pedagogies of the home, pedagogies of love, and mentoring in the academy. Educational Studies, 53(2), 155–177.
Grechanovs'ka, O. V. (2018). Pedagogіchna sistema formuvannja konflіktologіchnoї kul'turi v majbutnіh fahіvcіv tehnіchnih specіal'nostej. Monohrafiia. [Pedagogical system of formation of conflict culture in future specialists of technical specialties. Monograph]. Vіnnicja: TOV «TVORI»-Vinnytsia: LLC "Works". (in Ukrainian).
Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032004003
Gupta, B. L., and Choubey, A. K. (2021). Higher Education Institutions–Some Guidelines for Obtaining and Sustaining Autonomy in the Context of NEP 2020. Higher Education, 9(1).
Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of Visible Learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79–91. Retrieved from: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-13426-005
Hyland, P. (2000). Learning from feedback on assessment, in: A. Booth and P. Hyland (Eds) The practice of university history teaching (Manchester, Manchester University Press).
Jeynes, W.H. (2007). American educational history: School, society, and the common good.469. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/978145223233
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High impact education practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter? American Association of Colleges & Universities.
Kukulska-Hulme, Agnes; Bossu, Carina; Charitonos, Koula; Coughlan, Tim; Ferguson, Rebecca; FitzGerald, Elizabeth; Gaved, Mark; Guitert, Montse; Herodotou, Christothea; Maina, Marcelo; Prieto-Blázquez, Josep; Rienties, Bart; Sangrà, Albert; Sargent, Julia; Scanlon, Eileen and Whitelock, Denise. (2022). Innovating Pedagogy 2022: Open University Innovation Report 10. The Open University, Milton Keynes.
Kuzmin, V., Gaivoronska, T., Khitrova, T., Velykzhanina, D., Kazannikova, O., Kuzmina M. (2023). Communicative and Psychological Aspects of Professional Career Development: Exploring the Differences. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala, 81, 129-147, DOI: 10.33788/rcis.81.8
Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J. and Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creatingan inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic еducation, 31(1). 30‒43.
Lane, R. (2019). Formative Assessment Evidence and Practice Literature Review, AITSL: Melbourne.
Luxton-Reilly, A. (2009). A systematic review of tools that support peer assessment. Computer Science Education, 19 (4), 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993400903384844
Lytvynova, S. H., Spirin, O. M., Anikina, L. P. (2015). Khmarni servisy Office 365 [Office 365 cloud services] : tutorial / Kyiv: Comprint. 170 p. (in Ukrainian).
Makedon, V., Mykhailenko, O., & Vazov, R. (2021). Dominants and Features of Growth of the World Market of Robotics. European Journal of Management Issues, 29(3), 133-141. https://doi.org/10.15421/192113
Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbach, A. N., Bowman, N. A., Seifert, T. A. D., & Wolniak, G. C. (2016). How college affects students: 21st Century evidence that higher education works (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
McCarthy, J. P., &Anderson, L. (2000). Active Learning Techniques versus Traditional Teaching Styles: Two Experiments from History and Political Science. Innovative Higher Education, 24(4). 279-294.
McMurtrie, B. (2021). Good grades, stressed students: They struggled with online learning last fall, but not always in the ways you might expect. Chronicle of Higher Education.
Miège, V. (2000). The company is connected by communication. Grenoble, Miège V. The communical thought. Grenoble.
Mosol, N.A. (2022). Interaktyvni metody navchannia u vyshchii shkoli. [Interactive methods of learning in higher education]. Retrieved from: https://n v.zsmu.edu.ua/upload/doc _nmv/pk/sman_interaktyvni_metody_navch_u_vyshchii_shk oli.pdf (in Ukrainian).
O’Donnell, A. M., & Topping, K. J. (1998). Peers assessing peers: Possibilities and problems. In Topping, K. & Ehly, S., Peer-assisted learning (pp. 255–278). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Polishchuk, T. V. (2012). Informatsiyno-komunikatyvna kompetentnistʹ maybutnikh fakhivtsiv: pohlyad zarubizhnykh naukovtsiv. [Information and communication competence of future professionals]: the view of foreign scientists [Electronic resource ] / Preparing for successful communication with personnel. Retrieved from: http://trushtv.net46.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=57 (in Ukrainian).
Pranka, M. (2020). The walk-and-talk methodology – researching place and people. In SHS Web of Conferences, Vol. 85, 03007. 7th International Interdisciplinary Scientific Conference SOCIETY. HEALTH. WELFARE, 2018. Available at: https:// doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20208503007
Quaye, S. J., Harper, S. R., & Pendakur, S. L. (2020). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations ( 3rd ed.). Routledge.
Salen, K., and Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rulesof Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge: MIT Press, 688 p..
Shelukhin, M., Kupriichuk V., Kyrylko N., Makedon V., Chupryna N. (2021). Entrepreneurship Education with the Use of a Cloud-Oriented Educational Environment. International Journal of Entrepreneurship. Volume 25, Issue 6. URL: https://www.abacademies.org/articles/entrepreneurship-education-with-the-use-of-a-cloudoriented-educational-environment-11980.html
Singer, P. W., T. Brooking, Emerson. (2019). Viyna laykiv. Zbroya v rukakh sotsial'nykh merezh [War of likes. Weapons in the hands of social networks]. Kharkiv. (in Ukrainian).
Spiller, D. (2009). Assessment Matters: Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment. Teaching Development, The University of Waikato. Retrieved from: http://www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu/pdf/booklets/8_SelfPeerAssessment.pdf
Souflee, F., & Schmitt, G. (1974). Educating for Practice in Chicano Community. Journal of Education for Social Work, 10(3), 75–84. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23038503
Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Nicole Arroyo, E., Behling, S., Chambwe, N., Cintrón, D. L., Cooper, J. D., Dunster, G., Grummer, J. A., Hennessey, K., Hsiao, J., Iranon, N., Jones, L., Jordt, H., Keller, M., Lacey, M. E., Littlefield, C. E., & Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. PNAS, 117(12), 6476– 6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117.
Topping, K. J. (2021). Digital Hardware for Peer Assessment in K-12 Schools and Universities. Front. Educ. 6:666538. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.666538
Voznyuk, A., Kubitskyi, S., Balanovska, T., Chip, L., & Dorofyeyev, O. (2022). Synergetic simulation of managing processes in educational sphere in the contest of temporary self-ruled managerial target teams application. Financial and Credit Activity Problems of Theory and Practice, 3(44), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.55643/fcaptp.3.44.2022.3749
Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice, Higher Education, 45(4), 477-501.
Zivitere, M., Riashchenko, V., & Markina, I. (2015). Teacher–Pedagogical creativity and developer promoter. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 4068-4073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1156.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Secção
Licença
Direitos de Autor (c) 2023 Yuliia Botuzova, Oleksandr Iievliev , Iryna Okipniak, Krystyna Yandola, Tetiana Charkina
Este trabalho encontra-se publicado com a Licença Internacional Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0.
The BRAJETS follows the policy for Open Access Journals, provides immediate and free access to its content, following the principle that making scientific knowledge freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge and provides more international democratization of knowledge. Therefore, no fees apply, whether for submission, evaluation, publication, viewing or downloading of articles. In this sense, the authors who publish in this journal agree with the following terms: A) The authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right to first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), allowing the sharing of the work with recognition of the authorship of the work and initial publication in this journal. B) Authors are authorized to distribute non-exclusively the version of the work published in this journal (eg, publish in the institutional and non-institutional repository, as well as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal. C) Authors are encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (eg, online repositories or on their personal page), as well as to increase the impact and citation of the published work.