Experience of Lecturers Applying Innovative Assessment Strategies for Quality Teaching and Learning in Two Modules, University of the Free State
Keywords:
blended learning environment; innovative assessment; learning-centered approach; quality teaching and learning; South AfricaAbstract
Innovative assessment in a blended teaching and learning environment is critical to enhancing the quality of teaching and learning and helps evaluate students’ module outcomes. The study aimed to examine the assessment methods of two different modules in the Faculty of Education of a national university, highlighting lecturers' experiences in their attempt to use innovative assessment strategies for quality teaching and learning. This qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews with three lecturers and self-reflections of the three principal investigators. We couch the study in Fink’s taxonomy as it covers the creation of significant learning experiences, including but not limited to a learning-centered approach and a response to the changes in education. In the two modules, the assessments have been deemed innovative by integrating and using various assessment strategies, assessment tools, and formative and summative assessment activities that form part of broader learning and teaching strategies. The study employed generic data analysis to underscore the significance of innovative assessment strategies. The study exposed the value of institutional support in enhancing quality teaching and learning as envisioned by Vision 130 of the University of the Free State through innovative assessments. Furthermore, innovative approaches that align with the digital-native students result in greater personalized learning. Morally correct thinking and behavior and students working together are essential in achieving student success and bringing about quality in education in the distinctive context of a university in South Africa.
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.24.9.42
References
Alkaabi, A., Qablan, A., Alkatheeri, F., Alnaqbi, A., Alawlaki, M., Alameri, L., & Malhem, B. (2023). Experiences of university teachers with rotational blended learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative case study. PLOS One, 18(10), e0292796. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292796
Banta, T. W., & Palomba, C. A. (2015). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and improving assessment in higher education (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Barnes, M. E., & Caprino, K. (2016). Analyzing service-learning reflections through Fink’s taxonomy. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(5), 557–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1160221
Biggs, J., Tang, C., & Kennedy, G. (2022). Teaching for quality learning at university 5e. McGraw-Hill Education.
Bond, M. (2021). Schools and emergency remote education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A living rapid systematic review. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 191–247.
Branzetti, J., Gisondi, M. A., Hopson, L. R., & Regan, L. (2019). Aiming Beyond Competent: The Application of the Taxonomy of Significant Learning to Medical Education. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 31(4), 466–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2018.1561368
Bretschneider, P. J., Cirilli, S., Jones, T., Lynch, S., & Wilson, N. A. (2017). Document review as a qualitative research data collection method for teacher research. Sage Publications.
Carless, D., & Zhou, J. (2016). Starting small in assessment change: short in-class written responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(7), 1114–1127. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1068272
Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., & Gronhaug, K. (2001). Qualitative marketing research. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-03-2017-0068
Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2013). Research methods, design, and analysis (12th ed.). Pearson.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach. Sage Publications.
Creswell, (2021). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications.
El-Maaddawy, T. (2017). Innovative assessment paradigm to enhance student learning in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(6), 1439–1454. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1304896
Eskici, M., & Cayak, S (2023). The relationship between teachers’ technology proficiencies and their levels of integrating technology into their lessons. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 6(4), 808–821. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1331971
Fataar, A. (2019). Academic conversation: From the shadows of the university’s epistemic centre: Engaging the (mis)recognition struggles of students at the post-apartheid university. Southern African Review of Education, 25(2), 22–23. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-sare-v25-n2-a3
Ferri, F., Grifoni, P., & Guzzo, T. (2020). Online learning and emergency remote teaching: Opportunities and challenges in emergency situations. Education Sciences, 10(4), 1–12.
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: an integrated approach to designing college courses (Revised and updated edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Frank, M. R., Wang, D., Cebrian, M., & Rahwan, I. (2019). The evolution of citation graphs in artificial intelligence research. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(2), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0024-5.
Herro, D., Quigley, C., & Jacques, L. (2018). Dispositions for teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in a problem-based learning environment. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 4(1), 1–17.
Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9(1), 47–63.
Hollins, E. R. (2011). Teacher preparation for quality teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111409415
Hundley, S. P., & Keith, C. J. (2023). Introduction. In Trends in Assessment (pp. 1–14). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003440604-1
Jaafar, M. N. A., Zakaria, Z., & Zulkipli, Z. A. (2024). Examining laboratory assessment: Science teachers’ strategies and tools in focus. International Journal of Advanced Research in Education and Society, 6(1), 394-407.
Jankowski N, Samuga D, Bheda G, & Baker G. (2023). Trends in assessment: Ideas, opportunities, and issues for higher education. (S. P. Hundley & C. J. Keith, Eds.; 2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis.
Kerži?, D., Tomaževi?, N., Aristovnik, A., & Umek, L. (2019). Exploring critical factors of the perceived usefulness of blended learning for higher education students. PLOS ONE, 14(11), e0223767. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223767
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2004). A handbook for teacher research. McGraw-Hill Education. Lee & Ogawa (2021).
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications.
Lovat, T., & Clement, N. (2008). Quality teaching and values education: Coalescing for effective learning. Journal of Moral Education, 37(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240701803643.
Martin, M. O., Von Davier, M., & Mullis, I. V. (2020). Methods and procedures: TIMSS 2019 Technical Report. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
McDowell, L., & Sambell, K. (1999). The experience of innovative assessment: student perspectives. Assessment matters in higher education: Choosing and using diverse approaches, SRHE and Open University Press.
Moon, J. A. (2006). Learning journals: A handbook for reflective practice and professional development (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Myers, M. D. (2019). Qualitative research in business and management. Sage Publications.
Papanthymou, A., & Darra, M. (2023). Defining quality in primary and secondary education. International Education Studies, 16(2), 128. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v16n2p128
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T., 2008. Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Simkus, J. 2023 (July 31). Pilot study in research: Definitions and examples. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/pilot-studies.html
Teixeira?Dias, J. J. C., Pedrosa de Jesus, H., Neri de Souza, F., & Watts, M. (2005). Teaching for quality learning in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1123–1137.
Timms, M. J. (2016). Letting artificial intelligence in education out of the box: Educational cobots and smart classrooms. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 701–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0095-y University of the Free State, Vision 130 (2022).
William, A. U. (2022). Innovative assessment and quality education in Nigeria. Journal of Advances in Education and Philosophy, 6(7), 360–369. https://doi.org/10.36348/jaep.2022.v06i07.002.
Yangari, M., & Inga, E. (2021). Educational innovation in the evaluation processes within the flipped and blended learning models. Education Sciences, 11(9), 487. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090487.
Zou, D., Xie, H., & Wang, F. L. (2023). Effects of technology enhanced pee r, teacher and self-feedback on students’ collaborative writing, critical thinking tendency and engagement in learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 35(1), 166–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09337-y
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Solomon Chibaya, Ntombizandile Gcelu, Desiree Pearl Larey
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All articles published by IJLTER are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivatives 4.0 International License (CCBY-NC-ND4.0).
