利用互动式口头评估提高评估公平性

IF 2 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Amita Krautloher
{"title":"利用互动式口头评估提高评估公平性","authors":"Amita Krautloher","doi":"10.53761/4hg1me11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Equity in assessment has been a major issue plaguing the higher education sector for a long time and although efforts have been made to implement a variety of assessments to address this issue, the assessment design tends to ignore the increasingly diverse student population. This article assesses the equity of Interactive Oral Assessments (IOAs) based on the principles of the McCES framework: match, comprehensible, challenge, elicit, and scaffold. Accordingly, the process of designing and administering IOAs is compared with each of the five principles and shows that the assessment environment for students from equity backgrounds is significantly improved. To do this, the data collected from teaching staff and students from a two-year mixed methods research project at a regional university in Australia is used to evaluate the claim. The findings demonstrate that IOAs offer an opportunity to assess students’ learning and clarify their ability to achieve learning outcomes which aligns with the McCES framework; therefore, it is argued that IOAs are an equitable assessment approach. The implications of the findings for academics, students, and educational institutions are significant. For academics, they can be confident that their assessment approach is equitable. For non-traditional students, the chances of succeeding in assessments and improvement in learning are enhanced. For educational institutions, a direct impact on reducing the gap between the performance of mainstream students and non-traditional students in relation to retention, attrition, and successful completions is expected.","PeriodicalId":45764,"journal":{"name":"Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving assessment equity using Interactive Oral Assessments\",\"authors\":\"Amita Krautloher\",\"doi\":\"10.53761/4hg1me11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Equity in assessment has been a major issue plaguing the higher education sector for a long time and although efforts have been made to implement a variety of assessments to address this issue, the assessment design tends to ignore the increasingly diverse student population. This article assesses the equity of Interactive Oral Assessments (IOAs) based on the principles of the McCES framework: match, comprehensible, challenge, elicit, and scaffold. Accordingly, the process of designing and administering IOAs is compared with each of the five principles and shows that the assessment environment for students from equity backgrounds is significantly improved. To do this, the data collected from teaching staff and students from a two-year mixed methods research project at a regional university in Australia is used to evaluate the claim. The findings demonstrate that IOAs offer an opportunity to assess students’ learning and clarify their ability to achieve learning outcomes which aligns with the McCES framework; therefore, it is argued that IOAs are an equitable assessment approach. The implications of the findings for academics, students, and educational institutions are significant. For academics, they can be confident that their assessment approach is equitable. For non-traditional students, the chances of succeeding in assessments and improvement in learning are enhanced. For educational institutions, a direct impact on reducing the gap between the performance of mainstream students and non-traditional students in relation to retention, attrition, and successful completions is expected.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45764,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53761/4hg1me11\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53761/4hg1me11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

长期以来,评估的公平性一直是困扰高等教育界的一个主要问题,尽管人们一直在努力实施各种评估来解决这一问题,但评估设计往往忽视了日益多样化的学生群体。本文基于McCES框架的原则:匹配、理解、挑战、诱导和支架,对交互式口语评估(IOA)的公平性进行了评估。因此,将设计和实施交互式口语评测的过程与五项原则中的每一项进行了比较,结果表明,来自公平背景的学生的评测环境得到了显著改善。为此,我们利用在澳大利亚一所地区大学开展的为期两年的混合方法研究项目中从教学人员和学生那里收集到的数据,对这一主张进行了评估。研究结果表明,IOA 为评估学生的学习和明确他们实现学习成果的能力提供了机会,这与 McCES 框架是一致的;因此,IOA 被认为是一种公平的评估方法。研究结果对学者、学生和教育机构都有重要影响。对于学术界来说,他们可以确信自己的评估方法是公平的。对非传统学生而言,他们有更多的机会在评估中取得成功,并提高学习成绩。对教育机构而言,则可望直接缩小主流学生与非传统学生在保留学籍、自然减员和成功完成学业方面的表现差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Improving assessment equity using Interactive Oral Assessments
Equity in assessment has been a major issue plaguing the higher education sector for a long time and although efforts have been made to implement a variety of assessments to address this issue, the assessment design tends to ignore the increasingly diverse student population. This article assesses the equity of Interactive Oral Assessments (IOAs) based on the principles of the McCES framework: match, comprehensible, challenge, elicit, and scaffold. Accordingly, the process of designing and administering IOAs is compared with each of the five principles and shows that the assessment environment for students from equity backgrounds is significantly improved. To do this, the data collected from teaching staff and students from a two-year mixed methods research project at a regional university in Australia is used to evaluate the claim. The findings demonstrate that IOAs offer an opportunity to assess students’ learning and clarify their ability to achieve learning outcomes which aligns with the McCES framework; therefore, it is argued that IOAs are an equitable assessment approach. The implications of the findings for academics, students, and educational institutions are significant. For academics, they can be confident that their assessment approach is equitable. For non-traditional students, the chances of succeeding in assessments and improvement in learning are enhanced. For educational institutions, a direct impact on reducing the gap between the performance of mainstream students and non-traditional students in relation to retention, attrition, and successful completions is expected.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice
Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
18.80%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: The Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice aims to add significantly to the body of knowledge describing effective and innovative teaching and learning practice in higher education.The Journal is a forum for educational practitioners across a wide range of disciplines. Its purpose is to facilitate the communication of teaching and learning outcomes in a scholarly way, bridging the gap between journals covering purely academic research and articles and opinions published without peer review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信