مطالعات اندازه گیری و ارزشیابی آموزشی

مطالعات اندازه گیری و ارزشیابی آموزشی

شاخصه‌های روان‌سنجی پرسشنامۀ «سنجش اصیل» در فرایند یاددهی -یادگیری مطالعۀ موردی اعضای هیئت علمی دانشگاه کردستان

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان
گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه کردستان، سنندج، ایران
10.22034/emes.2025.2059237.2652
چکیده
هدف: هدف از اجرای این پژوهش، بررسی میزان بهره‌گیری اعضای هیئت علمی از شاخصه‌های سنجش اصیل در فرایند یاددهی یادگیری بود.
روش پژوهش: این مطالعه با رویکرد کمی و راهبرد پیمایشی انجام گرفت. جامعه آماری شامل تمامی اعضای هیئت علمی دانشگاه کردستان بود که با استفاده از فرمول کوکران، ۱۹۴ نفر به‌صورت تصادفی طبقه‌ای انتخاب شدند. ابزار گردآوری داده‌ها، پرسشنامه‌ای محقق‌ساخته بر پایه چارچوب هشت‌گانه ویگینز بود. روایی صوری و محتوایی پرسشنامه با نظر متخصصان تأیید شد و پایایی آن با آلفای کرونباخ و تحلیل عاملی تأییدی ارزیابی گردید.
یافته‌ها: نتایج مدل نشان داد که پرسشنامه سنجش اصیل با هشت عامل اصلی از اعتبار بالایی برخوردار است. ارزیابی مدل اندازه‌گیری با شاخص‌هایی مانند آلفای کرونباخ، پایایی ترکیبی و روایی همگرا و واگرا، بیانگر مطلوبیت و تناسب چارچوب بود. تحلیل مدل ساختاری بر اساس شاخص‌های Z نیز نشان داد که این چارچوب از ساختاری قوی و پایدار برخوردار است. افزون بر این، بین میزان بهره‌گیری از سنجش اصیل و متغیرهایی مانند دانشکده و مرتبه علمی تفاوت معنی‌داری مشاهده شد؛ به‌گونه‌ای که استادان باتجربه بیشتر بر خودارزیابی و تکالیف فکورانه و استادیاران بر الگودهی تمرکز داشتند. همچنین اعضای هیئت علمی دانشکده‌های مهندسی و علوم پایه بیشترین و اعضای هیئت علمی دانشکده زبان و ادبیات کمترین بهره‌گیری از سنجش اصیل را داشتند.
نتیجه‌گیری: این پژوهش با اعتبارسنجی ابزار سنجش و شناسایی الگوهای ارزیابی، به غنای ادبیات علمی در حوزه ارزشیابی آموزشی کمک کرده و می‌تواند در بهبود برنامه‌های توانمندسازی و سیاست‌گذاری‌های آموزشی مورد استفاده قرار گیرد.
کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

Psychometric Properties of the "Authentic Assessment" Questionnarie in the Teaching-Learning Process: A Case Study of Faculty Members at the Kurdistan

نویسندگان English

Naser Shirbagi
َJamal Salimi
Abdullah Azizi
Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
چکیده English

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the extent to which faculty members utilize authentic assessment components in the teaching -learning process.
Methods: This research followed a quantitative approach using a survey method. The statistical population included all faculty members of Kurdistan university, 194 of whom were randomly selected using the Cochran formula.Data were collected using a researcher-made questionnaire based on Wiggins’ eight-dimensional framework The questionnaire’s face and content validity was confirmed by experts, and its reliability was assessed through Cronbach’s alpha and confirmatory factor analysis.
Results: The model results showed that the original measurement questionnaire with eight main factors has high validity. Evaluation of the measurement model with indicators such as Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, and convergent and divergent validity indicated the suitability and appropriateness of the framework. Analysis of the structural model based on Z-scores also showed that this framework has a strong and stable structure. In addition, a significant difference was observed between the level of use of authentic assessment and variables such as faculty and academic rank, such that experienced professors focused more on self-assessment and reflective assignments, and assistant professors focused more on modeling. Also, faculty members from the faculties of engineering and basic sciences used authentic assessment the most, while faculty members from the Faculty of Language and Literature used it the least.
Conclusion: By validating assessment tools and identifying evaluation patterns, this research has contributed to the enrichment of scientific literature in the field of educational evaluation and can be used to improve empowerment programs and educational policies.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Keywords: "> Authentic assessment, psychometric evaluation of the questionnaire, faculty members, thoughtful tasks

References

Abdollahi Gol, T., Karami, M., & Karshki, H. (2016, April 14). Authentic assessment: A strategy for improving the quality of higher education system. National Congress on Higher Education in Iran. https://profdoc.um.ac.ir/paper-abstract-1056447.html [In Persian]
Ahmadi, H., Shirbagi, N., & Shirbagi, S. (2023). Dark va mizan-e bahregiri-ye mo'alleman az "Sanjesh-e Asil" dar farayand-e yad-dehi–yad-giri [The concept and extent of teachers' use of "Authentic Assessment" in the teaching–learning process]. Tadris Pazhuhi (Teaching Research), 11(4), 170–197. [In Persian]
Alqurashi, E. (2019). Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning environments. Distance Education, 40(1), 133–148.
Azizi, S., & Salimi, J. (2023). A study of undergraduate curricula in basic sciences, engineering, and social sciences based on the integrated curriculum. Curriculum Planning Studies, 12(24), 148–174. [In Persian]
Banta, T. W., & Palomba, C. A. (2014). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and improving assessment in higher education (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 551–575.
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long‐term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413.
Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. ASCD.
Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64(8), 723–733.
Centra, J. A. (2003). Will teachers receive higher student evaluations by giving higher grades and less course work? Research in Higher Education, 44(5), 495–518.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Dery, L. (2022). Forming a ranking from tied evaluations: A case of an online, interactive student peer assessment system. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.13774
Fletcher, R. B., Meyer, L. H., Anderson, H., Johnston, P., Brown, S., & Chen, J. (2012). Faculty and students’ conceptions of assessment in higher education. Higher Education, 64, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9484-1
Ghosh, S., Brooks, B., Ranmuthugala, D., & Bowles, M. (2020). Authentic versus traditional assessment: An empirical study investigating the difference in seafarer students' academic achievement. The Journal of Navigation, 73(4), 797–812.
Guskey, T. R. (1985). Implementing mastery learning. Wadsworth.
Heil, J., & Ifenthaler, D. (2023). Online assessment in higher education: A systematic review. Online Learning, 27(1), 187–218.
Hwang, G., & Chang, H. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers & Education, 56, 1023–1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.002
Koh, K., Delanoy, N., Thomas, C., Bene, R., Chapman, O., Turner, J., ... & Hone, G. (2019). The role of authentic assessment tasks in problem-based learning. Papers on Postsecondary Learning & Teaching, 3, 17–24.
Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (2000). Effects of grading leniency and low workload on students' evaluations of teaching: Popular myth, bias, validity, or innocent bystanders? Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 202–228.
Panadero, E., Andrade, H., & Brookhart, S. (2018). Fusing self-regulated learning and formative assessment: A roadmap of where we are, how we got here, and where we are going. The Australian Educational Researcher45(1), 13-31.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagné, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39–83). Rand McNally.
Scully, D. (2019). Constructing multiple-choice items to measure higher-order thinking. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 24(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.7275/2mc9-4f52
Sokhanvar, Z., Salehi, K., & Sokhanvar, F. (2021). Advantages of authentic assessment for improving the learning experience and employability skills of higher education students: A systematic literature review. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 101030.
Spooren, P., Brockx, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2013). On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: The state of the art. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 598–642.
Stiggins, R. J. (2005). Student-involved assessment for learning. Pearson.
Suskie, L. (2000). Fair assessment practices: Giving students equitable opportunities to demonstrate learning. AAHE Bulletin, 52(9), 7–9.
Suskie, L. (2018). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide. John Wiley & Sons.
Thorndike, R. L., & Hagen, E. P. (1977). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education. John Wiley & Sons.
Villarroel, V., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., Bruna, C., & Herrera-Seda, C. (2018). Authentic assessment: Creating a blueprint for course design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5), 840–854.
Villarroel, V., Boud, D., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., & Bruna, C. (2019). Using principles of authentic assessment to redesign written examinations and tests. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 57(1), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1564882
Welsandt, N. C. J., Fortunati, F., Winther, E., & Beck, K. (2024). Constructing and validating authentic assessments: The case of a new technology-based assessment of economic literacy. Empirical Research in Vocational Education & Training, 16, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40461-024-00158-0
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. Jossey-Bass.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. ASCD.