Search results

Although standardized testing of K-12 student knowledge and understanding garners considerable attention, few observers profess satisfaction with the assessments in place. In this exploratory paper, we report on the data gathered from an open-ended email survey of small, convenience samples of teachers and researchers. Although no clear consensus about alternative assessments of students’ historical knowing and understanding emerged, we argue that the potential for a consensus exists. Any emergent consensus, however, must be negotiated with several issues in mind.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the assessment methods used in higher education to assess students' learning, and to investigate the effects of college and grading system on the used assessment methods.

This descriptive study investigates the assessment methods used by teachers in higher education to assess their students' learning outcomes. An instrument consisting of 15 items (each item is an assessment method) was distributed to 736 undergraduate students from four public universities in Jordan.

Findings show that traditional paper‐pencil test is the most common method that is used to assess learning in higher education. Results also show that teachers in colleges of science and engineering and colleges of nursing use different assessment methods to assess learning, besides traditional testing such as: real life tasks (authentic assessment), papers, and projects. Also, the results show that teachers use the same assessment methods to assess learning, despite the grading systems (letter or numbers) used at their institutes.

The sample of the study was limited to undergraduate students and teachers' points of views about the frequent use of assessment methods were not studied.

Higher education institutes should encourage teachers to use new and modern assessment methods as well as traditional paper‐pencil testing, and study the reasons for not using these new methods.

The paper should alert the higher education institutes about the important of developing the assessment process, through knowing their students' points of view about the assessment methods. This will help to get students involved in the learning process.

In this chapter, we discuss health-related physical fitness and motor development assessments for students with physical disabilities or other health impairments in special education using traditional and innovative techniques. Traditional assessment techniques are those that are more standardized and formalized, while innovative assessment techniques refer to new variations or ways (alternative/authentic) to assess the abilities of students with physical disabilities and other health impairments. According to the United States Department of Education (2009), students with disabilities must be included in State and local assessments. Even though there has been significant growth in numbers, diversity and academic orientation of persons with physical disabilities, assessments practices have largely remained the same over the years. Adopting innovative pedagogies and emerging innovative assessment techniques may address some unmet needs of current students with disabilities faced with assessment biases.

Assessment is used to describe the process of gathering information to make judgments about how well someone has performed, how much progress has been made, and how much potential someone has. In other words, gathering information and forming judgments are both indispensable to good teaching. Educational institutions, government agencies, and professional associations are placing increasing emphasis on assessing performance in relevant areas of their domains. In this chapter, several issues important to the establishment of appropriate assessment procedures and the potential uses of both traditional and innovative assessment techniques are discussed. Finally, the limitations of traditional assessment techniques are considered, followed by the future perspectives on assessment techniques.

Identifying and prioritizing supply chain risk is significant from any product’s quality and reliability perspective. Under an input-process-output workflow, conventional risk prioritization uses a risk priority number (RPN) aligned to the risk analysis. Imprecise information coupled with a lack of dealing with hesitancy margins enlarges the scope, leading to improper assessment of risks. This significantly affects monitoring quality and performance. Against the backdrop, a methodology that identifies and prioritizes the operational supply chain risk factors signifies better risk assessment.

The study proposes a multi-criteria model for risk prioritization involving multiple decision-makers (DMs). The methodology offers a robust, hybrid system based on the Intuitionistic Fuzzy (IF) Set merged with the “Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution.” The nature of the model is robust. The same is shown by applying fuzzy concepts under multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) to prioritize the identified business risks for better assessment.

The proposed IF Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) for risk prioritization model can improve the decisions within organizations that make up the chains, thus guaranteeing a “better quality in risk management.” Establishing an efficient representation of uncertain information related to traditional failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) treatment involving multiple DMs means identifying potential risks in advance and providing better supply chain control.

In a company’s supply chain, blockchain allows data storage and transparent transmission of flows with traceability, privacy, security and transparency (Roy et al., 2022). They asserted that blockchain technology has great potential for traceability. Since risk assessment in supply chain operations can be treated as a traceability problem, further research is needed to use blockchain technologies. Lastly, issues like risk will be better assessed if predicted well; further research demands the suitability of applying predictive analysis on risk.

The study proposes a hybrid framework based on the generic risk assessment and MCDM methodologies under a fuzzy environment system. By this, the authors try to address the supply chain risk assessment and mitigation framework better than the conventional one. To the best of their knowledge, no study is found in existing literature attempting to explore the efficacy of the proposed hybrid approach over the traditional RPN system in prime sectors like steel (with production planning data). The validation experiment indicates the effectiveness of the results obtained from the proposed IF TOPSIS Approach to Risk Prioritization methodology is more practical and resembles the actual scenario compared to those obtained using the traditional RPN system (Kim et al., 2018; Kumar et al., 2018).

This study provides mathematical models to simulate the supply chain risk assessment, thus helping the manufacturer rank the risk level. In the end, the authors apply this model in a big-sized organization to validate its accuracy. The authors validate the proposed approach to an integrated steel plant impacting the production planning process. The model’s outcome substantially adds value to the current risk assessment and prioritization, significantly affecting better risk management quality.

This paper introduces the YouWalk-UOS mobile application, a tool that revolutionises the assessment of urban open spaces (UOS). The paper demonstrates how integrating real-time, on-ground observations with users’ reactions into a digital platform can transform the evaluation of urban open spaces. It seeks to address the existing shortcomings of traditional UOS assessment methods and underscore the need for innovative, adaptable and inclusive approaches.

Emphasizing the necessity of UOS for mental and physical health, community interaction and social and environmental resilience in cities, the methodology involves a comprehensive analysis of a number of theoretical frameworks that have historically influenced urban open space conceptualisation, design and assessment. The approach includes a critical review of traditional UOS assessment methods, contrasting them with the capabilities of the proposed YouWalk-UOS application. Building on the reviewed theoretical frameworks, the methodology articulates the application’s design, which encompasses 36 factors across three assessment domains: functional, social and perceptual and provides insights into how technology can be leveraged to offer a more holistic and participatory approach to urban space assessment.

YouWalk-UOS application represents an important advancement in urban space assessment, moving beyond the constraints of traditional methods. The application facilitates a co-assessment approach, enabling community members to actively participate in the evaluation and development of their urban environments. Findings highlight the essential role of technology in making urban space assessment more user-centred, aligning more closely with community needs and aspirations.

The originality lies in the focus on the co-assessment approach and integration of mobile technology into urban open space assessment, a relatively unexplored area in urban design literature. The application stands out as an innovative solution, offering a new perspective on engaging communities in co-assessing their environments. This research contributes to the discourse on urban design and planning by providing a fresh look at the intersection of technology, user engagement and urban space assessment.

The purpose of this paper is to describe this new evaluation experience with portfolio in economics, not only from the teacher’s point of view but from the student perspective, and all the learning from its implementation; to provide ideas of evaluation practices in virtual and face-to-face modality in international business education; to motivate the rethinking of assessment practices in higher education to combine the best of each modality in the future.

The present work is a case study based on a qualitative description of the implementation of a portfolio as an assessment practice, supported by a reflection questionnaire with students’ perceptions and some elements of metacognition. The first section summarizes the literature used as a theoretical framework of this work. The second section describes the portfolio implementation by analyzing teachers and students reflections with a qualitative approach. The third section presents the findings. The fourth section is a discussion of findings, practical implications, limitations and future research directions. Finally, the conclusions of the work are shared.

Because the portfolio has had overwhelming results to assess what students have learned during the pandemic, it has become the learning and assessment tool after the pandemic, as it transforms the classes experience by shifting the focus from traditional examinations to more comprehensive, personalized and reflective ones. It also empowers students to take ownership of their learning, develop essential skills and cultivate a deeper understanding. Among other benefits, the portfolio means the creation of a safe and supportive environment for honest reflection, the development and design of strategic directions to improve learning and lead students toward metacognitive autonomy. Reflection pieces, a critical component of the portfolio, are a vital tool in the proactive learning process, as through reflection students learn to examine their own performance and discuss strategies to enhance their success in future work.

This work began as an educational experience per se, not for research purposes, which caused it to be systematized and reconstructed in a descriptive way, not to measure quantitative results. In this way, the present work describes that the portfolio helps to achieve better results on students’ learning than traditional examinations but, as another limitation, it does not measure them nor the process. One more limitation of this work is that it was written in a postpandemic context but was implemented during the pandemic; therefore, the circumstances of writing are not the same as those of implementation, and this could also entail a certain margin of decontextualization. At the same time, this is an experience that is still in process and continually being adapted to this changed and changing educational postpandemic context.

One of the main implications of the portfolio experience, transferable to all educational contexts, is that it transforms the final exam into a metacognitive one, letting students be aware of their own process of learning and results – objectives and competences – acquired. In this way, it lets teachers witness a part of the learning process that is not so evident in the traditional assessment practices – focused on some aspect of the learning – as it makes visible the way in which students receive, process and apply content, that is to say, how they make it their own.

The portfolio promotes reflective learning and metacognition, vital skills that benefit students beyond the classroom. This can have a positive impact on societal attitudes toward education and the quality of learning. Of the students, 82% felt the portfolio creation was helpful in their personal and professional lives, suggesting a broader societal impact. The paper’s findings contribute to the body of knowledge about the effectiveness of portfolio-based assessment in higher education, especially in the worldwide transition from online education to postpandemic education. This could guide future studies in similar educational contexts or with different pedagogical innovative tools.

In light of the 2020 pandemic lockdown, this work delves into the pressing need for educators to adapt and modify their teaching approaches. The relevance of this study is accentuated by the worldwide transition from online education to postpandemic education. This paper bridges the gap between theory and practice because the research can be applied to the educational practice of any international business education context, as well as lay the foundations for future research in the field that contributes to increasing evidence of the effectiveness of the use of the portfolio to achieve significant and deep learning in higher education.

The aim of this paper is to provide insights into challenges and opportunities in transforming assessment of learning in accounting education from established practices to technology-based methods. 10; 10;

This reflective commentary is based on personal reflections and experiences of three senior academics from the same university on the accelerated utilisation of online assessment in accounting education due to COVID-19. Further information was obtained from document analysis, informal conversations with colleagues and observations.

The findings of this paper suggest that despite numerous challenges, online assessments may replace traditional face-to-face assessments such as tests and exams in accounting and if done properly, this could drive significant improvements in student learning and outcomes. Institutions need to invest in appropriate technology, provide appropriate staff training and ensure good online assessment design that incorporates principles of authenticity and fairness. Robust online assessment practices need to be integrated with e-proctoring systems to ensure academic integrity is upheld.

The paper provides functional insights to higher education management, teaching staff and other stakeholders such as professional accreditation bodies on challenges and opportunities in utilising online assessments. It offers guidance to educators on transforming assessment of learning using the power of technology.

The ideas in this paper are original. The paper shares our lived experiences in transforming established assessment practices in accounting courses to align with online teaching and learning due to COVID-19.

Assessment is used for purposes of accountability and the improvement of teaching and learning. In addition, stakeholders such as employers and government funding councils rely on assessment to provide them with data ensuring quality of provision and standards of education. Illustrates how these seemingly conflicting demands can be met with reference to three empirical sources: interviews with staff at the University of Central Lancashire, England; and fieldwork conducted at James Madison University (JMU), Virginia, and Alverno College, Milwaukee, USA. Makes a case for assessment which is integrated into the learning experience, responsive to student needs, and which is congruent with the aims of individual programmes and the mission statement of the institution.