International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 9, Issue 11 (November 2022), Pages: 106-112

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Frequency of use of online assessment by higher level teachers during confinement due to the COVID-19 pandemic

 Author(s): Elena Fabiola Ruiz-Ledesma 1, *, Elizabeth Acosta-Gonzaga 2

 Affiliation(s):

 1Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Escuela Superior de Cómputo, Mexico City, Mexico
 2Instituto Politécnico Nacional, UPIICSA, Mexico City, Mexico

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1513-8243

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2022.11.013

 Abstract:

The purpose of this research was to review how often mathematics teachers use technological tools to assess their students and, the relationship established with the reliability, ease of use, and usefulness that teachers find in them; in order to offer them courses or workshops that allow them to use different tools that help them in the evaluation process, as well as, to show them different options of use for the different moments in their class, such as in diagnostic, formative or summative assessment. Under the paradigm of quantitative research, a questionnaire was applied to a random sample of 12 teachers from a public institution of higher education in Mexico City. All teachers were invited (N=14), but only 12 were able to participate; therefore, there was an 8% margin of error. The application of the questionnaire was during the period of confinement. The reliability of the questionnaire has been validated and Pearson correlation analyzes have been carried out, based on the variables: frequency and ease of use, usefulness, and reliability. The results showed that in the category of medium use, more than half of the teachers in the sample have shown a frequency of regular use of the online assessment tools. A comparison was made with the authors of the reviewed literature and coincidences were found with the answers given by the teachers. For example, there are authors who showed that teachers use ICT more frequently in their classes when they have all the necessary technological skills. Due to the above, various alternatives were proposed that encourage teachers to use it. The higher the frequency of use of online platforms, the greater the utility they find in them. With the results obtained, it is concluded that the frequency of use of online platforms positively influences the development of confidence that teachers must work with these tools.

 © 2022 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Digital platforms, Frequency of use, Higher education, Mathematics assessment, Online assessment

 Article History: Received 17 April 2022, Received in revised form 2 August 2022, Accepted 3 August 2022

 Acknowledgment 

The authors thank the SIP-IPN, COFAA, EDD, and EDI, for the support provided.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Ruiz-Ledesma EF and Acosta-Gonzaga E (2022). Frequency of use of online assessment by higher level teachers during confinement due to the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 9(11): 106-112

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 No Figure 

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 

----------------------------------------------    

 References (29)

  1. Acosta-Gonzaga E and Gordillo-Mejia A (2015). Technology-enhanced assessment process: Issues affecting e-assessment uptake. ECORFAN Journal-Mexico, 6(15): 1236-1253.   [Google Scholar]
  2. Acosta-Gonzaga E, García-Sosa R, and Mejía AG (2015). Un análisis de los factores actitudinales del docente hacia el uso de evaluaciones en línea para asignaturas de matemáticas. In Investigación educativa en Latinoamérica. Centro de Estudios e Investigaciones para el Desarrollo Docente: 109-124. Available online at: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5434884
  3. Acosta-Gonzaga E, Ramírez Arellano A, Álvarez Cedillo JA, Rivera González I, and Rivera González G (2018). Modelo de la aceptación de evaluaciones en línea de matemáticas: Percepciones de los estudiantes de licenciaturas en ciencias sociales. Revista Iberoamericana Para la Investigación y el Desarrollo Educativo, 8(16): 165-193. https://doi.org/10.23913/ride.v8i16.337   [Google Scholar]
  4. Amador YA (2015). El uso de las TIC en la educación universitaria: Motivación que incide en su uso y frecuencia. Revista de Lenguas Modernas, (22): 335-349.   [Google Scholar]
  5. Bray A and Tangney B (2017). Technology usage in mathematics education research–A systematic review of recent trends. Computers and Education, 114: 255-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.004   [Google Scholar]
  6. Bujisic M, Hutchinson J, Ahn JA, and Jovanovic V (2018). BEVQUAL: A tool for measuring performance quality in beverage operations. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 21(5): 570-589. https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2018.1500058   [Google Scholar]
  7. Chukwunonso F and Oguike MC (2013). An evaluation framework for new ICTs adoption in architectural education. International Journal of Informatics and Communication Technology (IJ-ICT), 2(3): 183-189. https://doi.org/10.11591/ij-ict.v2i3.5285   [Google Scholar]
  8. Clarke-Midura J and Dede C (2010). Assessment, technology, and change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3): 309-328.‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782553   [Google Scholar]
  9. Cuhadar C (2018). Investigation of pre-service teachers' levels of readiness to technology integration in education. Contemporary Educational Technology, 9(1): 61-75. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6211   [Google Scholar]
  10. Ertmer PA and Ottenbreit-Leftwich AT (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3): 255-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551   [Google Scholar]
  11. García FA, Martínez ÚF, Lechuga ML, Hernández FAL, Pérez MS, and Marín MR (2015). Frecuencia de uso de las plataformas virtuales de enseñanza. Una comparación Moodle versus Sakai en los estudios de perfil económico. Revista de Investigación en Educación, 13(1): 69-87.   [Google Scholar]
  12. Heinrich E, Milne J, and Moore M (2009). An investigation into e-tool use for formative assignment assessment–status and recommendations. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 12(4): 176-192.   [Google Scholar]
  13. Hernández-Ramos JP, Martínez-Abad F, Peñalvo FJG, García MEH, and Rodríguez-Conde MJ (2014). Teachers’ attitude regarding the use of ICT: A factor reliability and validity study. Computers in Human Behavior, 31: 509-516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.039   [Google Scholar]
  14. Hue LT and Ab Jalil H (2013). Attitudes towards ICT integration into curriculum and usage among university lecturers in Vietnam. International Journal of Instruction, 6(2): 53-66.   [Google Scholar]
  15. Huerta VVG, García JJG, and Zamudio MM (2020). Importance of teacher training incorporating sustainability in their subjects from the life cycle approach in higher school of computation (ESCOM-IPN). In: Kavoura A, Kefallonitis E, and Theodoridis P (Eds.), Strategic innovative marketing and tourism. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36126-6_28   [Google Scholar]
  16. IPN (2022). Oferta educativa nivel superior. Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Ciudad de México, Mexico.   [Google Scholar]
  17. Johnson L, Becker SA, Cummins M, Estrada V, Freeman A, and Hall C (2016). NMC horizon report: 2016 higher education edition. The New Media Consortium, Austin, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  18. Krücken G (2014). Higher education reforms and unintended consequences: A research agenda. Studies in Higher Education, 39(8): 1439-1450. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.949539   [Google Scholar]
  19. Marcelo C, Yot C, and Mayor C (2015). Enseñar con tecnologías digitales en la universidad. Enseñar con Tecnologías Digitales en la Universidad, 45: 117-132.   [Google Scholar]
  20. Martin F, Polly D, Coles S, and Wang C (2020). Examining higher education faculty use of current digital technologies: Importance, competence, and motivation. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 32(1): 73-86.   [Google Scholar]
  21. Mercader C and Gairín J (2020). University teachers' perception of barriers to the use of digital technologies: The importance of the academic discipline. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-0182-x   [Google Scholar]
  22. Molinero Bárcenas MDC and Chávez Morales U (2019). Technological tools in the teaching-learning process in higher education students. Revista Iberoamericana Para la Investigación y el Desarrollo Educativo, 10(19): e005. https://doi.org/10.23913/ride.v10i19.494   [Google Scholar]
  23. Navarro-Espinosa JA, Vaquero-Abellán M, Perea-Moreno AJ, Pedrós-Pérez G, Aparicio-Martínez P, and Martínez-Jiménez MP (2021). The influence of technology on mental well-being of stem teachers at university level: COVID-19 as a stressor. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(18): 9605. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189605   [Google Scholar] PMid:34574529 PMCid:PMC8472288
  24. Ocaña A, Pulido DA, Gil SM, and Zuluaga MM (2019). Cambios en el desempeño de estudiantes de pensamiento matemático desde la evaluación formativa con un banco de preguntas en línea [Changes in the performance of students of a mathematical thinking course through formative assessment with an online question bank]. Interdisciplinaria, 36(1): 7-22. https://doi.org/10.16888/interd.36.1.1   [Google Scholar]
  25. Reiners T, Gregory S, and Dreher H (2011). Educational assessment in virtual world environments. In the Australian Technology Network Assessment Conference 2011. Curtin University, Perth, Australia: 132-140   [Google Scholar]
  26. Revilla-Cuesta V, Skaf M, Navarro-González M, and Ortega-López V (2021). Reflections throughout the COVID-19 Lockdown: What do I need for successful learning of engineering? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(21): 11527. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111527   [Google Scholar] PMid:34770041 PMCid:PMC8583235
  27. Suurtamm C and Neubrand M (2015). Assessment and testing in mathematics education. In the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education. Springer, Seoul, Korea: 557-562. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12688-3_58   [Google Scholar]
  28. Teo T (2014). Unpacking teachers' acceptance of technology: Tests of measurement invariance and latent mean differences. Computers and Education, 75: 127-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.014   [Google Scholar]
  29. Vaillant D, Zidán ER, and Biagas GB (2020). The use of platforms and digital tools for the teaching of mathematics. Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em Educação, 28(108): 718-740. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-40362020002802241   [Google Scholar]