Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 2517–2529 | Cite as

Combining Online Learning & Assessment in synchronization form

  • Mohamed A. Amasha
  • Rania A. Abougalala
  • Ahmad J. Reeves
  • Salem Alkhalaf
Article
  • 137 Downloads

Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of integration of online learning and assessment in synchronization form (OLASF) on students’ learning performance. The study seeks to evaluate how the synchronization content with immediate assessment can affect the knowledge performance of the students. An experimental design with digital formative assessment tools was used to fulfill the research purpose. Participants were 64 undergraduate students enrolled in is introduction to computer and programming (CSC 101) at Qassim University. The students from level five were divided into two-treatment groups: online learning & assessment instruction in Synchronization form using Nearpod, and PowerPoint instruction with traditional form. The experiment was completed within 6 weeks. Formative assessment test was used to access students learning performance after class. Descriptive statistics and a t-test were used to analyze the data. Our findings revealed that the use of OLASF was an intrinsic motivation and could be a promising way of enhancing students’ learning performance.

Keywords

Online learning Assessment E-learning E-content Synchronization Learning performance 

References

  1. Amasha, M. A., & Alkhalaf, S. (2016). Using RSS 2.00 as a model for u-learning to develop e-training in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(7), 516–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apperson, J. M., Laws, E. L., & Scepansky, J. A. (2008). An assessment of student preferencesfor PowerPoint presentation structure in undergraduate courses. Computers & Education, 50(1), 148–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beach, P. (2017). Self-directed online learning: A theoretical model for understanding elementary teachers' online learning experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernardo, V., Ramos, M. P., Plapler, H., de Figueiredo, L. F. P., Nader, H. B., Anção, M. S., & Sigulem, D. (2004). Web-based learning in undergraduate medical education: Development and assessment of an online course on experimental surgery. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 73(9), 731–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchanan, T. (2000). The efficacy of a world-wide web mediated formative assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(3), 193–200.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Challis, D. (2005). Committing to quality learning through adaptive online assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(5), 519–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, K. C., & Jang, S. J. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 741–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chou, P. N., Chang, C. C., & Lu, P. F. (2015). Prezi versus PowerPoint: The effects of varied digital presentation tools on students’ learning performance. Computers & Education, 91, 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dobson, J. L. (2008). The use of formative online quizzes to enhance class preparation and scores on summative exams. Advances in Physiology Education, 32(4), 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Faber, J. M., Luyten, H., & Visscher, A. J. (2017). The effects of a digital formative assessment tool on mathematics achievement and student motivation: Results of a randomized experiment. Computers & Education, 106, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hwang, G. J., & Chang, H. F. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers in Education, 56(4), 1023–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, B. C., & Kiviniemi, M. T. (2009). The effect of online chapter quizzes on exam performance in an undergraduate social psychology course. Teaching of Psychology, 36(1), 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Khezrlou, S., & Ellis, R. (2017). Effects of computer-assisted glosses on EFL learners' vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension in three learning conditions. System, 65, 104–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lane, A. (2017). The impact of technology on the teaching and assessment of ‘systems’ diagrams in two online environmental management modules. Open University, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
  16. Liu, Y., & Liu, M. (2017). An online learning approach to improving the quality of crowd-sourcing. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 25, 2166–2179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McKenzie, W. A., Perini, E., Rohlf, V., Toukhsati, S., Conduit, R., & Sanson, G. (2013). A blended learning lecture delivery model for large and diverse undergraduate cohorts. Computers & Education, 64, 116–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  19. Ofiesh, N. (2006). Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning disabilities: Why we need comprehensive evaluations as part of the process. Psychology in the Schools, 43(8), 883–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oosterhof, N. N., & Todorov, A. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(32), 11087–11092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ozcelik, D. A. (1981). Okullardaolcmevedegerlendirme (measurement and evaluation in the schools). Ankara: USYM-EgitimYayinlari.Google Scholar
  22. Pachler, N., Daly, C., Mor, Y., & Mellar, H. (2010). Formative e-assessment: Practitioner cases. Computers & Education, 54(3), 715–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rovai, A. P. (2004). A constructivist approach to online college learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Savoy, A., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Information retention from PowerPoint™ and traditional lectures. Computers & Education, 52(4), 858–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sclater, N., & Howie, K. (2003). User requirements of the “ultimate” online assessment engine. Computers & Education, 40(3), 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Şendağ, S., & Odabaşı, H. F. (2009). Effects of an online problem based learning course on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Computers & Education, 53(1), 132–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stull, J. C., Majerich, D. M., Bernacki, M. L., Jansen Varnum, S., & Ducette, J. P. (2011). The effects of formative assessment pre-lecture online chapter quizzes and student-initiated inquiries to the instructor on academic achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation, 17(4), 253–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thurlow, M. L., Johnstone, C. J., & Ketterlin-Geller, L. R. (2008). Universal design of assessment. Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice, 73–81.Google Scholar
  31. Triantafillou, E., Pomportsis, A., & Demetriadis, S. (2003). The design and the formative evaluation of an adaptive educational system based on cognitive styles. Computers in Education, 41(1), 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tzeng, G. H., Chiang, C. H., & Li, C. W. (2007). Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(4), 1028–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vonderwell, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. (2007). Asynchronous discussions and assessment in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson, K., Boyd, C., Chen, L., & Jamal, S. (2011). Improving student performance in a first-year geography course: Examining the importance of computer-assisted formative assessment. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1493–1500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wolsey, T. D. (2008). Efficacy of instructor feedback on written work in an online program. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(2), 311.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed A. Amasha
    • 1
  • Rania A. Abougalala
    • 1
  • Ahmad J. Reeves
    • 2
  • Salem Alkhalaf
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer Teacher PreparationDamietta UniversityDamiettaEgypt
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceQassim UniversityBuraydahSaudi Arabia
  3. 3.Faculty of Science and Arts, Computer Science DepartmentQassim UniversityAlrassSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations