Future Agriculture Faculty Experiences Using Digital Assessment Tools in an Experimental Classroom
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56103/nactaj.v67i1.53Keywords:
Preparing the Future Professoriate, Assessment, Active Learning, Digital FluencyAbstract
The capacity for effective utilization of technology is increasing in importance in the scholarship of teaching and learning practice in agricultural education. There is scarce literature exploring students’ perceptions of the use of digital assessment tools (DATs). This study aimed to explore the experiences and perceptions of graduate students enrolled in a teaching and learning course towards DATs while investigating how the experimental active learning space impacted the way participants experienced DATs. Participants were divided into two focus groups, which, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, were conducted via Zoom. The research used phenomenology as the qualitative approach to answer the research questions. Thematic Analysis was utilized as the method of data analysis. DATs were experienced by participants as new opportunities to enhance their assessment practice in educational settings. While recognizing the advantages of DATs, participants perceived new challenges in implementing them, particularly concerns over technology requirements. Participants reported a mixed educational experience in the new classroom. Whereas some participants felt the space was overwhelming and confusing, some students considered that the experimental classroom features made the space more collaborative. Finally, utilizing DATs in an experimental classroom was experienced as a new and enhanced way to adopt assessment tools.
Downloads
References
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques. A Handbook for College Teachers. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The Instructional Effect of Feedback in Test-Like Events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002213
Becker, S. A., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall, C. G., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/174879
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC higher education reports. ERIC.
Bradbury-Jones, C., Sambrook, S., & Irvine, F. (2009). The phenomenological focus group: An oxymoron? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(3), 663–671. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04922.x
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bunch, J. C., Robinson, J. S., Edwards, M. C., & Antonenko, P. D. (2014). How a Serious Digital Game Affected Students’ Animal Science and Mathematical Competence in Agricultural Education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(3), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2014.03057
Cizek, G. J., Andrade, H. L., & Bennett, R. E. (2019). Formative Assessment: History, Definition, and Progress. In H. L. Andrade, R. E. Bennett, & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of Formative Assessment in the Disciplines (1st ed.). Routledge.
Domingo, M. G., & Garganté, A. B. (2016). Exploring the use of educational technology in primary education: Teachers’ perception of mobile technology learning impacts and applications’ use in the classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.023
Dyer, K. (2019). 75 Digital Tools and Apps Teachers Can Use to Support Formative Assessment in the Classroom. https://www.nwea.org/blog/2019/75-digital-tools-apps-teachers-use-to-support-classroom-formative-assessment/
Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: the teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational Technology Research and Development, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.
Galanek, J. D., Gierdowski, D. C., & Brooks, D. C. (2018). ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2018.
Green, K. C. (2012). Campus Computing 2012: The National Survey of Computing and Informatino Technology in American Higher Education. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=green+campus&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5#4
Green, K. C. (2019). Campus Computing 2019: The 30th National Survey of Computing and Informatino Technology in American Higher Education.
Husserl, E. (1980). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy. M. Nijhoff.
Ismail, M. A. A., Ahmad, A., Mohammad, J. A. M., Fakri, N. M. R. M., Nor, M. Z. M., & Pa, M. N. M. (2019). Using Kahoot! as a formative assessment tool in medical education: A phenomenological study. BMC Medical Education, 19(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1658-z
Linder, J. R., Rodriguez, M. T., Strong, R., Jones, D., & Layfield, D. (2016). Research Priority Area 2: New Technologies, Practices, and Products Adoption Decisions. In T. G. Roberts, A. Harder, & M. T. Brashears (Eds.), American Association for Agricultural Education national research agenda: 2016-2020.
Lopez, K. A., & Willis, D. G. (2004). Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: Their contributions to nursing knowledge. Qualitative Health Research, 14(5), 726–735. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304263638
McGregor, S. L. T., & Murnane, J. A. (2010). Paradigm, methodology and method: intellectual integrity in consumer scholarship. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(4), 419–427. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00883.x
Miles, M. B., Huberman, M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis. A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. SAGE Publications.
National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2018). How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures (T. N. A. Press (ed.)). https://doi.org/10.17226/24783
Palmer, M., Larkin, M., de Visser, R., & Fadden, G. (2010). Developing an interpretative phenomenological approach to focus group data. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7(2), 99–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780880802513194
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Pew Research Center. (2019). Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/
Phillips, E., Montague, J., & Archer, S. (2018). Developing Methods for Using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis With Focus Group Data. Developing Methods for Using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis With Focus Group Data. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526428684
Pierce, R., & Ball, L. (2009). Perceptions That May Affect Teachers’ Intention to Use Technology in Secondary Mathematics Classes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0649-008-9177-6
Puentedura, R. R. (2014). SAMR, Learning, and Assessment. In 21C Learning Conference. http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/11/28/SAMRLearningAssessment.pdf
Reed, D. K., Martin, E., Hazeltine, E., & McMurray, B. (2020). Students’ Perceptions of a Gamified Reading Assessment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 35(4), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419856272
Rideout, V., & Robb, M. (2019). The Common Sense Census: Media Use By Tweens and Teens. Common Sense Media, 1–104. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Saldaña, J. (2021). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (4E ed.). Sage.
Silver, L., & Cornibert, S. (2019). Smartphone Ownership Is Growing Rapidly Around the World, but Not Always Equally. Pew Research Center, February, 47. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/02/05/smartphone-ownership-is-growing-rapidly-around-the-world-but-not-always-equally/%0Ahttp://www.pewglobal.org/2019/02/05/smartphone-ownership-is-growing-rapidly-around-the-world-but-not-always-equally/
Talbert, R., & Mor-Avi, A. (2019). A space for learning: An analysis of research on active learning spaces. Heliyon, 5(12), e02967.
Tomkins, L., & Eatough, V. (2010). Reflecting on the use of IPA with focus groups: Pitfalls and potentials. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7(3), 244–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780880903121491
UNESCO. (2011). ICT competency standards for teachers (version 2).
van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C. W., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Effects of Feedback in a Computer-Based Learning Environment on Students’ Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 475–511. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314564881
van der Kleij, F. M., Timmers, C. F., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2011). The effectiveness of methods for providing written feedback through a computer-based assessment for learning: a systematic review. CADMO, 19(1, SI), 21+.
Van Manen, M. (2017). But Is It Phenomenology? Qualitative Health Research, 27(6), 775–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317699570
Vickrey, T., Golick, D., & Stains, M. (2018). Educational technologies and instructional practices in agricultural sciences: Leveraging the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework to critically review the literature. NACTA Journal, 62(1), 65–76.
Webb, C., & Kevern, J. (2001). Focus groups as a research method: a critique of some aspects of their use in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(6), 798–805. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01720.x
Yan, Z., Li, Z., Panadero, E., Yang, M., Yang, L., & Lao, H. (2021). A systematic review on factors influencing teachers’ intentions and implementations regarding formative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 00(00), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1884042
