SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2026 / Volume: 8 Issue: 2

Remote Assessment in Higher Education during COVID-19 Pandemic

Selma Şenel(BALIKESIR UNIVERSITY, NECATİBEY FACULTY OF EDUCATION)0000-0002-5803-0793
Hüseyin Can Şenel(NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-7501-9174
Pages
—
Publication Date
2021-06-10
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results indicated assignments are the mostly used tools and students are generally satisfied about the quality of the assessment practices.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Universities have made a compulsory shift to distance education due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
📊
Key Findings & Data:All of the higher education instutitions in Turkey have completed 2019-2020 Spring semester using online tools.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results indicated assignments are the mostly used tools and students are generally satisfied about the quality of the assessment practices.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2019-2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:remote assessment · measurement and evaluation · distance education

Abstract

Universities have made a compulsory shift to distance education due to the Covid-19 pandemic. All of the higher education instutitions in Turkey have completed 2019-2020 Spring semester using online tools. However, most of these institutions were not fully-prepared to have all of their courses online. Technical inadequencies, lack of qualified online tools, inexperience of instructors and students in distance education have emerged as major issues that instutitions have to face. In addition to all, a new question arised; which approaches will be used for assessment. This study aimed to seek the common assessment approaches used through pandemic, how students perceived the quality of the assessment and the pros and cons of using these practices. Additionally, we examined whether participants’ perceptions about quality of the assessment differ according to interaction with faculty members and use of online tests. Researchers employed survey design to reply four research questions and used a three-part instrument to collect qualitative and quantitative data. 486 students from 61 universities voluntarily participated in the study. Results indicated assignments are the mostly used tools and students are generally satisfied about the quality of the assessment practices. Another result is that students who interact with faculty members are more satisfied with the quality of the assessment practices. This emphasizes the importance of formative assessment and feedback in remote assessment. Further, students who took online tests are more satisfied with the quality of assessment. Suggestions were made for future research.

Özet

Universities have made a compulsory shift to distance education due to the Covid-19 pandemic. All of the higher education instutitions in Turkey have completed 2019-2020 Spring semester using online tools. However, most of these institutions were not fully-prepared to have all of their courses online. Technical inadequencies, lack of qualified online tools, inexperience of instructors and students in distance education have emerged as major issues that instutitions have to face. In addition to all, a new question arised; which approaches will be used for assessment. This study aimed to seek the common assessment approaches used through pandemic, how students perceived the quality of the assessment and the pros and cons of using these practices. Additionally, we examined whether participants’ perceptions about quality of the assessment differ according to interaction with faculty members and use of online tests. Researchers employed survey design to reply four research questions and used a three-part instrument to collect qualitative and quantitative data. 486 students from 61 universities voluntarily participated in the study. Results indicated assignments are the mostly used tools and students are generally satisfied about the quality of the assessment practices. Another result is that students who interact with faculty members are more satisfied with the quality of the assessment practices. This emphasizes the importance of formative assessment and feedback in remote assessment. Further, students who took online tests are more satisfied with the quality of assessment. Suggestions were made for future research.

🔖

Cite This Article

Şenel, S., Şenel, H. C. (2021). Remote Assessment in Higher Education during COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Volume: 8 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.820140

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (35)

  1. Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers and Education, 126, 334 345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021
  2. Alhih, M., & Ossiannilsson, E. (2017). Levels of interaction provided by online distance education models. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(6), 2733-2748. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01250a
  3. Araka, E., Maina, E., Gitonga, R., & Oboko, R. (2020). Research trends in measurement and intervention tools for self-regulated learning for e-learning environments-systematic review (2008-2018). Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 15(6). 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-020-00129-5
  4. Bozkurt, A. & Sharma R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1-6.
  5. Arnold, I. J. M. (2016). Cheating at online formative tests: Does it pay off? Internet and Higher Education, 29, 98-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.02.001
  6. Atılgan, H., Kan, A., & Doğan, N. (2009). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme [Measurement and evaluation in education]. Anı Yayıncılık.
  7. Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9064-9
  8. Chaiyo, Y., & Nokham, R. (2017). The effect of Kahoot, Quizizz and Google Forms on the student’s perception in the classrooms response system. 2nd Joint International Conference on Digital Arts, Media and Technology 2017: Digital Economy for Sustainable Growth, ICDAMT 2017, 178 182. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDAMT.2017.7904957
  9. Chen, Z., Jiao, J., & Hu, K. (2020). Formative assessment as an online instruction intervention. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 19(1), 1 16. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijdet.20210101.oa1
  10. Cheng, I., & Basu, A. (2006). Improving multimedia innovative item types for computer based testing. ISM 2006 - 8th IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia, 557-564. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISM.2006.92
  11. Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 49(1), 91-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09464-3
  12. Frey, B. (2018). The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139
  13. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). SAGE Publications.
  14. Hatzipanagos, S., & Warburton, S. (2009). Feedback as dialogue: Exploring the links between formative assessment and social software in distance learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(1), 45-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880902759919
  15. Jain, A. K., Bolle, R., & Pankanti, S. (2006). Biometrics: personal identification in networked society (Vol. 479). Springer.
  16. Joint Information Systems Committee. (2010). Effective assessment in a digital age a guide to technology-enhanced assessment and feedback. Higher Education Funding Council for England. https://facultyinnovate.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/digiassass_eada.pdf
  17. Koh, J. H. L., & Kan, R. Y. P. (2020). Perceptions of learning management system quality, satisfaction, and usage: Differences among students of the arts. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 26-40. https://doi.org/10.14742/AJET.5187
  18. Koneru, I. (2017). Exploring moodle functionality for managing Open Distance Learning e-assessments. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(4), 129 141. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.340402
  19. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15-21.
  20. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. SAGE Publications.
  21. Martini, M., Gazzaniga, V., Bragazzi, N. L., & Barberis, I. (2019). The Spanish influenza pandemic: A lesson from history 100 years after 1918. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene, 60(1), E64-E67. https://doi.org/10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2019.60.1.1205
  22. Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). E-learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 129-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001
  23. Murray, M., Pérez, J., Geist, D., & Hedrick, A. (2012). Student interaction with online course content: Build it and they might come. Journal of Information Technology Education:Research, 11(1), 125-140. https://doi.org/10.28945/1592
  24. Nguyen, J. G., Keuseman, K. J., & Humston, J. J. (2020). Minimize online cheating for online assessments during COVID 19 Pandemic. Journal of Chemical Education. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00790
  25. Nyachwaya, J. M. (2020). Teaching general chemistry (I) online during COVID-19. Process, outcomes, and lessons learned: A reflection. Journal of Chemical Education, I, 17-21. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00891
  26. Peterson, J. (2019). An analysis of academic dishonesty in online classes. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 31(1), 24-36.
  27. Rovai, A. P. (2000). Online and traditional assessments: What is the difference? Internet and Higher Education, 3(3), 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00028-8
  28. Rowe, N. C. (2004). Cheating in online student asssessment: Beyond plagiarism. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 7(2). 1-8.
  29. Shrago, J. B., & Smith, M. K. (2006). Online assessment in the K-12 classroom: A formative assessment model for improving student performance on standardized tests. In M. Hricko & L. S. Howell (Eds.), Online assessment and measurement: Case studies from higher education, K-12 and corporate (pp. 181-195). Information Science Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-497-2.ch013
  30. Stödberg, U. (2012). A research review of e-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(5), 591-604. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.557496
  31. University Ranking by Academic Performance. (2020, November). The position of our universities in the 11 world general rankings in 2019. http://tr.urapcenter.org/2019/index.php
  32. Uribe, S. N., & Vaughan, M. (2017). Facilitating student learning in distance education: a case study on the development and implementation of a multifaceted feedback system. Distance Education, 38(3), 288-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1369005
  33. Veletsianos, G., & Houlden, S. (2019). An analysis of flexible learning and flexibility over the last 40 years of distance education. Distance Education, 40(4), 454 468. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2019.1681893
  34. Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2019). Online communication and interaction in distance higher education: A framework study of good practice. International Review of Education, 65(4), 605-632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-019-09792-3
  35. Williams, D. D., Howell, S. L., & Hricko, M. (2005). Online assessment, measurement and evaluation: Emerging practices. Information Science Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-747-8