Assessment and Evaluation
Assessment and Evaluation
XingLin Zhao
Thompson Rivers University
5520_01 - Assessment and Evaluation
Instructor: Frederic Fovet
Introduction
Assessment and evaluation are integral components of the educational landscape (Sievertsen, 2022), serving as dynamic processes that illuminate the journey of learning and inform crucial decision-making.
The interplay and distinction between assessment and evaluation in educational contexts reveal a nuanced relationship. Assessment, as a continuous and formative process, concentrates on monitoring and gauging student development, providing timely feedback for an effective educational experience (Furtak, 2022). Evaluation, in contrast, is a summative and decision-driven process, drawing on comprehensive assessment data to inform pivotal decisions on individuals or initiatives (Wiliam, 2014). While interconnected, assessment and evaluation assume distinct roles within the educational assessment framework, contributing synergistically to the broader educational landscape.
Insights Gained from the Course
What is Assessment
Assessment constitutes the systematic gathering of information aimed at monitoring progress and facilitating informed educational decisions, as needed. It encompasses the evaluative judgment or quantification of the intrinsic value of a given entity, whether it be an individual, a process, or a program. This multifaceted process employs a range of methodological tools, including observations, interviews, behavioral monitoring, and standardized tests. Within the broader framework of assessment, the term "testing" represents a specialized form of evaluation, characterized by its application under controlled circumstances, often contrived, for the precise purpose of administration (Kizlik, 2012).
Types of Assessments
In the realm of educational evaluation, a diverse array of assessment methodologies and paradigms exists. These encompass formative, summative, informal, formal, continuous, final, process, product, divergent, and convergent assessments, each serving distinctive roles within the pedagogical landscape. Formative assessments assume the role of monitoring learner progress and providing constructive feedback to catalyze learning enhancement. In contrast, summative assessments undertake the task of evaluating learners' proficiency and comprehension at the culmination of a specified instructional segment, typically a unit or course. Informal assessments, essentially ungraded, serve as instruments for the collection of data pertaining to student learning, augmenting instructors' understanding of their charges. In stark contrast, formal assessments assume a graded disposition and wield the capacity to substantiate determinations regarding student advancement, frequently in the form of summative appraisals. Continuous assessments represent an ongoing and pervasive evaluation process, interwoven throughout the entire course of instruction, which is juxtaposed with final assessments, scheduled meticulously to encapsulate the terminus of a given instructional segment. Process assessments concentrate their purview on the procedural facets of learning, elucidating the dynamics and strategies employed by the learner. Product assessments, conversely, pivot towards the terminus of learning, scrutinizing the resultant achievement, be it in the form of projects, papers, or any other substantive output. Divergent assessments are devised to accommodate the divergence of thought, permitting multiple correct responses or interpretations. In counterpoint, convergent assessments adhere to a singular correct response, channeling evaluation towards unequivocal correctness. These multifarious assessment types collectively form the tapestry of educational evaluation strategies, affording educators the latitude to select the most congruent approach for their specific pedagogical objectives and contexts (Kizlik, 2012).
Assessment in Education: Top 14 Examples
What is Evaluation
Evaluation constitutes a multifaceted process encompassing the discernment of value, merit, suitability, soundness, legitimacy, and other pertinent attributes associated with a subject matter that has undergone a dependable measurement or assessment. It constitutes a methodical compilation of data, undertaken with the intention of formulating determinations concerning individuals or programs. It is important to emphasize that evaluation serves as the overarching concept encompassing both measurement and testing. The methodical data gathering within this context may manifest in diverse formats, predominantly dichotomized as quantitative or qualitative in nature (Kizlik, 2012).
Types of Evaluation
In the realm of evaluative methodologies, an array of distinct typologies is discernible, encompassing formative, summative, process, impact, outcome, and cost-benefit evaluations. Formative evaluation, situated within the developmental phase of a program or intervention, assumes the mantle of enhancing the program's quality and efficacy by means of iterative refinement and optimization. In contradistinction, summative evaluation occupies the terminal phase of program implementation, its principal objective being the comprehensive appraisal of the program's overall effectiveness and attainment of predefined objectives. Process evaluation, in contradistinction, transpires concomitantly with program or intervention execution, engendering a comprehensive examination of the program's implementation fidelity and the extent to which it faithfully adheres to its intended structure and design. Impact evaluation stands as a distinctive methodological approach directed towards discerning the immediate effects and consequences of a program or intervention, thereby elucidating its short-term ramifications on relevant variables of interest. By contrast, outcome evaluation pertains to a longitudinal purview, where the longitudinal repercussions of a program or intervention are subjected to meticulous scrutiny and analysis, striving to elucidate the enduring, enduring impacts that transpire over time. Lastly, cost-benefit evaluation undertakes the intricate task of ascertaining the financial and economic prudence of a program or intervention by juxtaposing the accrued benefits against the attendant costs, thereby facilitating an informed determination of the economic viability of the endeavor (Kizlik, 2012).
What are the different types of evaluation?
The Interplay and Distinction between Assessment and Evaluation in Educational Contexts
Assessment and evaluation constitute interconnected yet discrete paradigms within the realm of educational assessment. Assessment, characterized as the systematic collection of data pertaining to student learning, concentrates on the measurement of cognitive and affective domains, culminating in the provision of constructive feedback aimed at enhancing the learning experience. Conversely, evaluation assumes the role of a discerning judgment, informed by the comprehensive data derived from dependable assessments, in determining the intrinsic value, appropriateness, merit, legality, validity, and overall quality of the object of scrutiny. While assessment is fundamentally attuned to the pedagogical endeavor, evaluation is inherently geared toward decision-making, whether concerning individual performance or programmatic efficacy, grounded in the corpus of information gleaned through the assessment process. Assessment, a continuous undertaking woven into the fabric of the educational journey, operates as a perpetual conduit for monitoring and gauging the development of students. Its iterative nature ensures the provision of timely, tailored feedback to learners, thereby enabling the cultivation of a more effective and informed educational experience. Evaluation, on the other hand, materializes as a summative appraisal typically manifesting at the culmination of a program or intervention, undertaking the synthesis of assessment data to inform pivotal decisions on the individuals or initiatives under scrutiny. In essence, assessment and evaluation, while intrinsically linked, assume distinct roles within the educational assessment framework. Assessment embodies an ongoing, formative process orientated towards student development, while evaluation is a summative, decision-driven endeavor grounded in the comprehensive assessment data. This dichotomy in function and timing endows each process with unique attributes that contribute synergistically to the broader educational landscape (Kizlik, 2012).
Assessment and Evaluation in Education: What's the Difference?
An the "Present"
Standardized Tests
Standardized assessments offer a uniform means of evaluating student proficiency across diverse educational institutions and locales. These tests serve as valuable tools for pinpointing specific strengths and weaknesses within the curriculum, thereby facilitating educators in implementing targeted enhancements. It is crucial to acknowledge, however, that standardized tests lack diagnostic precision and fail to furnish a comprehensive portrayal of an individual student's capabilities or future potential. Results may be susceptible to external influences, such as familial income disparities and variations in students' background knowledge, thereby placing certain demographic groups at a disadvantage. Additionally, the composition of standardized tests may inadvertently create impediments for students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, those learning English as a second language, and those enrolled in Individualized Education Programs (Tienken, 2023).
IELTS (International English Language Testing System)
The application of Green's evaluative framework to assess the IELTS test exposes certain areas necessitating improvement, notably in augmenting the authenticity of listening modules and mitigating the influence of construct-irrelevant skills. Despite its identified shortcomings, IELTS persists as a preeminent international assessment tool for gauging English language proficiency. Its enduring popularity stems from its role as a gatekeeping mechanism and its efficacy in motivating non-native speakers to enhance their English language capabilities (Peltekov, 2021).
The economic repercussions of the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) test negatively impact students, manifesting in escalating costs that render it financially burdensome. The persistent rise in examination expenses particularly affects students compelled to retake the test due to non-attainment of requisite minimum standards, exacerbating their financial strain. Additionally, geographical disparities necessitate some students to incur further costs by traveling to different regions or countries to undertake the examination. The financial challenges are further compounded by preparatory courses tailored for the IELTS test, amplifying the economic hurdles confronting students. Notably, the fiscal weight of the test is predominantly shouldered by low-income families, motivated by aspirations for their children's acceptance into esteemed academic institutions. The requisite overall scores for postgraduate programs range from 6 to 7, with minimum criteria for individual module band scores varying between 5 and 6, contingent upon the specific program of study (Alsagoafi, 2018).
2022 IELTS UPDATES: FEES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR TAKING IELTS
Large-Scale Assessment
Large-scale language assessment serves dual roles, addressing both pedagogic and learning objectives, while concurrently aligning with political, bureaucratic, and accountability agendas. Traditionally, language testers have emphasized uniformity and technical precision in the realm of large-scale language assessment, fostering contributions to pedagogic and learning aims. This focus aims to enhance the overall quality and consistency of language assessment practices. However, it is imperative to acknowledge that large-scale language assessment is entwined with broader political, bureaucratic, and accountability considerations. In this context, such assessments function as tools for evaluating the efficacy of educational systems and directing resource allocation, reflecting their multifaceted utility beyond purely educational objectives (Fox, 2013, pp. 531–541).
"GAOKAO"
China's 2019 gaokao exams (Western Perspective）
The Gaokao profoundly influences various facets of Chinese education, exerting a significant impact on curriculum design, instructional methodologies, evaluation practices, and university admissions. Its influence on the curriculum is evident in the prioritization of subjects and topics in schools, driven by the imperative for students to prepare comprehensively for the examination. The instructional landscape is similarly shaped by Gaokao, with educators often emphasizing exam-focused preparation and aligning teaching strategies with the exam's format. As a major evaluative instrument, Gaokao holds the key to determining students' academic achievements and shaping their future opportunities. Its pivotal role in university admissions underscores its significance as the primary criterion for selecting candidates for higher education. Beyond its academic implications, Gaokao is regarded as a life competition in China, contributing to the creation of immense pressure on students and their families. The prominence of Gaokao in Chinese education is underscored by the cultural preference to refer to it by its Chinese name rather than its English translation, signifying its deeply ingrained role in the educational landscape of the country (Sun, 2023).
The Gaokao is perceived as relatively equitable due to the limited influence of social capitalism within China's educational system, where the transparency of the examination process and the recognition of tuition-related factors contribute to its perceived fairness. In contrast, the SAT in the United States has undergone extensive commercialization, reflecting the pervasive impact of American capital. In the U.S., university admissions are comprehensive, considering a student's entire profile rather than relying on a single test. This preference for well-rounded candidates can inadvertently introduce bias, often favoring students from more affluent social backgrounds (Liu, 2023).
Gaokao and analogous educational competitions embody a nuanced interplay between two ostensibly conflicting forms of agency: the promotion of virtue and the contest against societal marginalization, encapsulated in the concept of "nuli fendou" or diligent struggle. These examinations, marked by intense competition, have the potential to contribute to social stratification. Attainment of success in such rigorous assessments is commonly perceived as a conduit for upward social mobility, presenting opportunities for advancement. Conversely, failure in these exams can result in social marginalization, curtailing future prospects and limiting opportunities for individuals within the broader societal context. The juxtaposition of virtue cultivation and the struggle against marginalization encapsulates the complex dynamics inherent in educational competitions like Gaokao (Howlett, 2022).
For Diverse Learners
Students with disabilities, English learners (ELs), and other diverse student populations encounter notable challenges in the context of large-scale standardized assessments. The past two decades have witnessed a focal emphasis on addressing concerns related to accessibility and fairness within test development and assessment policies. The determination of what is deemed permissible and accessible in assessments is intricately linked to the prevailing educational policy framework and the inherent structure of the assessment system (Cawthon & Shyyan, 2022).
It is imperative to address the affective needs of these students during large-scale writing assessments, recognizing the significance of emotional support for their overall success. By integrating evidence-based writing instruction with targeted test preparation strategies, educators can facilitate the acquisition of foundational writing skills. This dual approach not only enhances performance on standardized assessments but also equips students with the essential writing proficiency required to meet societal demands. The amalgamation of evidence-based writing practices and test preparation endeavors thus proves instrumental in cultivating the capabilities of students with learning disabilities in the realm of writing (Olinghouse & Colwell, 2013).
In The "Future"
Class Companion
The discourse outlines the procedure for devising a personalized grading scale within the Class Companion platform and subsequently evaluating its efficacy using a cohort of students as a representative sample(Class Companion, 2023).
T-Partner
One paper introduces an authoring tool, named T-Partner, designed to facilitate collaboration between artificial intelligence and human intelligence in assisting instructors with informed pedagogical decisions. The tool encompasses several key functionalities:
Search for Relevant Pedagogical Situations:
T-Partner supports online instructors in identifying pertinent pedagogical situations within the learning environment by leveraging educational data.
Generate Visualizations of Patterns and Trends:
The tool aids instructors in comprehending the dynamics of students' courses by creating visualizations that highlight patterns and trends within the educational data.
Create Personalized Study Plans (Interventions):
T-Partner empowers instructors to formulate personalized study plans or interventions for individual students based on the discerned pedagogical situations.
Deliver Study Plans to Target Students:
Instructors can directly disseminate the personalized study plans to the identified target students, ensuring timely and tailored support and guidance.
Check the Effectiveness of Study Plans:
T-Partner includes features that enable instructors to systematically monitor and assess the impact of the implemented study plans on students' performance, facilitating an evaluation of the efficacy of the interventions.
By integrating these functionalities, T-Partner serves as a comprehensive tool to enhance instructors' capacity to make informed pedagogical decisions through collaborative efforts between artificial and human intelligences (Paiva & Bittencourt, 2020, pp. 484–459).
AMIGUS
In response to the pandemic-induced shift towards remote learning and recognizing the needs of isolated individuals, AMIGUS, a social robot, emerges as a valuable companion for students engaged in online classes. This innovative robotic companion performs various supportive functions:
Providing Guidance:
AMIGUS acts as a guide, assisting students in navigating their online learning environment. It offers support and addresses any questions or challenges that students may encounter during their study sessions.
Offering Reminders:
The robot serves as a timely reminder system, alerting students to upcoming deadlines, assignments, or significant events. This feature ensures students remain organized and adhere to their academic timelines.
Offering Suggestions:
AMIGUS extends assistance by suggesting effective study strategies, valuable resources, or techniques, empowering students to optimize their learning experience and enhance their academic performance.
Tracking Progress:
The robot engages in progress tracking, monitoring students' advancements on tasks or assignments. By providing feedback and updates on performance, AMIGUS contributes to maintaining student motivation and accountability.
Providing Encouragement:
AMIGUS delivers words of encouragement and motivation to students, fostering a positive learning environment. This personalized support aids in boosting students' confidence, thereby enhancing their focus and engagement in their studies.
AMIGUS, through its multifaceted capabilities, strives to mitigate the challenges posed by remote learning, offering companionship, motivation, and practical assistance to students pursuing their education from home (Alamo et al., 2022).
The Benefits
Artificial Intelligence (AI) plays a pivotal role in automating administrative tasks within the field of education through the utilization of technologies like Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) algorithms. This automation significantly reduces the time and effort associated with manual tasks. Key areas where AI contributes to administrative efficiency include:
Grading and Assessment:
AI algorithms, leveraging NLP and ML, can automate grading and assessment processes by analyzing student responses and providing instant feedback. This not only saves teachers considerable time but also enables more timely interventions to address students' needs.
Scheduling and Organizing:
AI-driven algorithms excel in automating administrative tasks related to scheduling and organizing. By optimizing timetables, allocating resources efficiently, and managing logistics, AI streamlines administrative processes, enhancing overall operational efficiency.
Chatbots for Routine Inquiries:
AI-powered chatbots prove invaluable for handling routine inquiries and providing support to students and staff. This reduces the necessity for human intervention in routine administrative tasks, allowing human resources to focus on more complex or strategic matters.
Data Analysis for Decision-Making:
AI can analyze data from diverse sources, including student performance data and attendance records. By identifying patterns and trends, administrators gain valuable insights for making data-driven decisions and implementing targeted interventions to enhance educational outcomes.
In essence, AI's integration in education administration not only enhances efficiency but also enables a more personalized and responsive approach to addressing the needs of both students and staff. This technological advancement facilitates a more streamlined, data-informed, and adaptive educational ecosystem (Akour et al., 2023).
AI plays a transformative role in assessment and evaluation within education, offering a range of benefits and efficiencies:
Automated Grading:
AI algorithms excel in automating the grading of objective assessments, such as multiple-choice questions. This not only saves educators considerable time but also provides immediate feedback to students, fostering a timely learning feedback loop.
Essay Evaluation:
AI-powered tools streamline the evaluation of essays by analyzing grammar, structure, and content. This efficient process assists educators in assessing written assignments more effectively, promoting consistency and constructive feedback.
Personalized Feedback:
AI contributes to personalized education by offering tailored feedback to students based on their individual strengths and weaknesses. This personalized guidance aids students in addressing specific areas for improvement, enhancing overall learning outcomes.
Data Analysis:
AI algorithms analyze extensive assessment data to unveil patterns and trends. Educators can leverage these insights to gain a comprehensive understanding of student performance, facilitating data-driven decision-making for instructional improvements.
Adaptive Learning:
AI-powered adaptive learning platforms dynamically assess students' knowledge and skills in real-time. By providing personalized learning paths, these platforms ensure that each student receives targeted instruction, addressing their unique learning needs.
Plagiarism Detection:
AI tools play a crucial role in maintaining academic integrity by identifying instances of plagiarism. By comparing student work against a comprehensive database of sources, AI aids educators in upholding academic honesty in assessments.
Proctoring:
AI extends its capabilities to remote proctoring during online assessments. This ensures exam integrity by monitoring students and preventing potential cheating, fostering a secure testing environment.
In summary, AI's integration into assessment and evaluation processes enhances efficiency, personalization, and the overall quality of educational assessments, contributing to a more effective and equitable learning experience (Meletiadou, 2023).
The Disadvantages
The implementation of AI in learning, while holding promise, raises potential disadvantages. The automated processes facilitated by AI may contribute to a lack of human interaction within classrooms, potentially diminishing the personalized and socially enriching aspects of education. Ethical concerns emerge regarding the responsible use and implications of AI in educational settings, including issues related to data privacy, algorithmic bias, and transparency. Furthermore, there are potential drawbacks in student outcomes and teacher development, as reliance on AI may inadvertently overlook the nuanced complexities of individualized learning and hinder the professional growth of educators. Careful consideration and ethical frameworks are crucial to navigate these challenges and ensure a balanced integration of AI in educational environments (Rizvi, 2023).
The integration of AI in assessment and evaluation, while offering advantages, comes with potential disadvantages. There is a risk of bias in assessment results due to inherent biases in AI algorithms, impacting the fairness and accuracy of evaluations. The lack of human judgment in AI systems may lead to a reduction in the ability to capture the complexity and nuances of student performance, resulting in a less holistic evaluation. Additionally, the limited adaptability of AI may hinder its effectiveness in accommodating individual learning styles, potentially leading to a standardized and less personalized approach. Technical issues, such as glitches, system failures, or compatibility issues, pose a concern, as reliance on technology introduces the risk of disruptions to the learning process and compromises the reliability of assessment outcomes. Addressing these challenges is essential for ensuring the ethical and effective use of AI in educational assessments (Harry, 2023, pp. 260–268).
The drawbacks of employing AI in assessment and evaluation include the potential for bias in algorithms, as these systems can inherit biases from their training data, leading to unjust outcomes. AI's lack of human judgment poses a challenge, as it cannot fully comprehend context, nuances, and subjective elements considered by human evaluators. The limited adaptability of AI to individual learning styles may result in standardized assessments that inadequately gauge a student's abilities. Ethical concerns arise, encompassing issues of privacy, data security, and the potential for the misuse of personal information. Furthermore, AI may lack emotional intelligence, struggling to accurately assess non-cognitive skills like empathy or creativity, which are pivotal for holistic education. Addressing these challenges is crucial for the responsible and equitable integration of AI in assessment and evaluation practices (Zhang & Deng, 2022).
Epilogue
The educational landscape in the Western world differs significantly from that of China. Historically, Chinese perspectives on Western education have contributed to a broader discourse steeped in Westernism, portraying the West as a paradigm of modernization from which China can glean valuable insights (Li, 2022). The pivotal moment when the Soviet Union achieved the milestone of sending men into space prompted a comprehensive Sovietization of Chinese education. However, with the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union, China's reform and opening up took center stage, leading to a resurgence of American influence in shaping its educational framework.
Nonetheless, this paradigm is quietly undergoing a transformation, discernible not only in academic literature but also in the fabric of everyday life. Personally, I hold a deep appreciation for the Chinese proverb, "Seek common ground while reserving differences." Consequently, I consistently strive to identify shared elements in educational assessments and evaluations, such as large-scale assessments and standardized tests. This pursuit of commonalities is imperative for a more nuanced understanding, bridging the substantial differences dictated by national conditions. It serves as a guide, pointing towards potential trajectories for the future.
For me, this educational journey in the West mirrors the sentiment expressed in a Buddhist scripture: "This is what I heard."
In the future, I may not necessarily pursue a career as a teacher. However, I am keen on engaging in the field of education, and my work experience at McKinsey has instilled in me a habit of viewing things from a financial perspective. Consequently, the path to the future has become crucial. Currently, it is evident that AI is undeniably the most significant developmental direction for the future. I would like to share some information about the future.
Online Gaming
Students participating in this course will have access to a Nintendo Switch (UDL), game software, and controllers during the learning period. Initially, they will familiarize themselves with the fundamental knowledge of gaming and understand the construction materials. Subsequently, they will engage in "problem-solving" within the gaming context. Following this, students will investigate the characteristics of components such as the Leftnau device, including outputs and horsepower, and present their findings in reports. The pinnacle of this course involves the construction of a "bionic amphibious transforming vehicle." Utilizing such a vehicle, students who emerge victorious in in-game racing competitions will receive an "A+" rating as an assessment (Ryan Sochol, 2023).
Video games offer interactive and immersive experiences that can significantly bolster student motivation and engagement within educational settings. Beyond their entertaining appeal, video games provide unique opportunities for interdisciplinary learning, allowing students to explore a diverse range of subjects such as social studies, math, science, language learning, and physical education. Notably, the positive impact extends to students' attitudes towards subjects, with evidence indicating that those engaging with educational video games exhibit a more favorable disposition. The provision of consistent feedback within the gaming environment further cultivates a robust learning atmosphere, enhancing overall engagement. Moreover, the interactive and feedback-rich nature of video games can extend beyond cognitive benefits, potentially contributing to improvements in students' balance and physical activity levels (Arias, 2014).
This is indeed a substantial topic, extending beyond how computer games can better stimulate students' learning enthusiasm and interest. At times, it may also intersect with examination policies, as exemplified by the LEGO (UDL) learning classes in China.
LEGO
During my time in China, I had the opportunity to contribute to a strategic consultation for a small educational training institution focused on Lego education. Aside from assisting the company in generating revenue, it became evident that education itself was influenced by certain policies. In the initial stages of marketing, conveying to parents that their children could learn Lego and subsequently participate in national competitions under the guidance of teachers was positioned as beneficial for future school choices. This extended to both American and Chinese universities.
Khan Academy
Khan Academy harnesses the capabilities of AI technology to deliver personalized assessments and evaluations for students engaging in online learning. Employing algorithms, the platform scrutinizes students' progress, offering real-time feedback on their performance. The AI algorithms within Khan Academy are adept at tracking individual learning patterns, discerning strengths and weaknesses, and suggesting tailored exercises and resources for improvement. The system adapts dynamically to students' needs, delivering customized content and challenges aligned with their performance and learning pace. Beyond academic measures, the AI-powered assessments on Khan Academy extend to evaluating students' mathematical self-concept and consider socioeconomic factors, including access to technology and parental educational attainment. It is noteworthy, however, that additional research is warranted to delve into the role of teachers and the pedagogical methodologies that complement the use of this technological tool in the learning process (Rueda-Gómez et al., 2023).
AI is inevitably destined to play a more profound role in education, despite the current abundance of controversies. Similar to the early days of the internet, where students began searching for information online rather than turning to books, discussing whether this represents progress or regression solely from an educational standpoint becomes meaningless. The financial forces exerted by the market cannot be ignored.
In today's context, AI demonstrates advantages in catering to diverse student populations. For instance, in countries facing a shortage of teaching resources, AI-driven online courses are proposed as a solution to address this challenge.
Ethical Issues
The utilization of AI for evaluation and assessment in education gives rise to ethical concerns, including:
Biased Algorithms:
Biases in algorithms can perpetuate discrimination based on factors such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status. Addressing gender bias in algorithm development and data sets is essential to prevent or mitigate adverse effects on students.
Transparency and Accountability:
Concerns arise about the transparency and accountability of AI systems integrated into decision-making processes. Efforts are needed to enhance transparency, making AI systems more accountable and minimizing negative consequences, thus ensuring responsible deployment.
Fairness:
AI systems in admissions, financial aid, and other student services must prioritize fairness and avoid reinforcing existing biases. Identifying and mitigating bias in algorithms is a critical area of research and resource allocation in the development and deployment of AI in education.
Human Displacement:
The displacement of human educators by AI systems raises ethical considerations. It is crucial to ensure that AI systems align with human values, complement human capabilities, and do not undermine human autonomy in educational settings.
Data Quality and Traceability:
The responsible development and deployment of AI in education demand high-quality data collection, accurate labeling, and thorough algorithm documentation. Maintaining data traceability and openness is vital to ensure ethical practices throughout the AI lifecycle in education.
Addressing these ethical concerns is imperative to foster responsible and equitable use of AI in education, safeguarding against biases, ensuring fairness, and upholding transparency and accountability in decision-making processes (Slimi & Villarejo-Carballido, 2023).
AI-powered assessment tools present promising advancements by enhancing the precision and efficiency of assessments, providing personalized feedback for students, and enabling adaptable teaching strategies tailored to individual student needs. However, challenges persist in the form of a lack of transparency in decision-making processes, impeding educators' ability to comprehend how AI algorithms reach conclusions and thus hindering the assessment of accuracy and fairness. Additionally, the absence of stakeholder participation in the development of AI tools for education can result in tools lacking relevance or encountering difficulties in adoption within classrooms. Addressing these issues is crucial to ensure the responsible and effective integration of AI in education, fostering transparency, fairness, and stakeholder engagement for the benefit of students and educators alike (Owan et al., 2023). The fusion of education and artificial intelligence is gradually materializing.
"TO BE OR NOT TO BE", That never is a question.
References
Akour, I., Alshurideh, H., Alzoubi, H. M., Alshurideh, M., & Antouz, Y. A. (2023). Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Improving Educational System: The Mediating role of Smart Learning. 2023 International Conference on Business Analytics for Technology and Security (ICBATS). https://doi.org/10.1109/icbats57792.2023.10111284
Alamo, A., Espinoza, C., & Raez, R. (2022). AMIGUS: a robot companion for students. 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). https://doi.org/10.1109/hri53351.2022.9889483
Alsagoafi, A. (2018). IELTS economic washback: a case study on English major students at King Faisal University in Al-Hasa, Saudi Arabia. Language Testing in Asia, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-018-0058-3
Arias, M. (2014). Using video games in education. Journal of Mason Graduate Research, 1(2), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.13021/g8jmgr.v1i2.416
Bebs Legaspi. (2022, April 26). 2022 IELTS UPDATES: FEES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR TAKING IELTS; PHILIPPINES/HONG KONG. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osHp8aw4g6o
Capacity4dev Members’ Channel. (2020, September 22). What are the different types of evaluation? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEalJHrT_E8
Cawthon, S. W., & Shyyan, V. (2022). Accessibility and Accommodations on Large-Scale Standardized Assessments. Routledge Resources Online - Education. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781138609877-ree52-1
Class Companion puts AI to work helping teachers help students. (n.d.). https://classcompanion.com/blog/class-companion-puts-ai-to-work-helping-teachers-help-students
Class Companion. (2023a, September 21). Class Companion Overview [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1ODHhEQLDo
Class Companion. (2023, November 27). Class Companion Teacher Series: Julissa Bohannon [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrwo26Pfo9E
Cresswell, J., Schwantner, U., & Waters, C. (2015). A review of international large-scale assessments in education: Assessing component skills and collecting contextual data.
Fox, J. (2013). Large‐Scale Assessment. Carleton University, 531–541. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118411360.wbcla022
Furtak, E.M. (2022). Formative Assessment. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781138609877-REE62-1
Harry, A. (2023). Role of AI in education. Interdiciplinary Journal and Hummanity (INJURITY), 2(3), 260–268. https://doi.org/10.58631/injurity.v2i3.52
Howlett, Z. M. (2022). Gaokao Warriors: Diligent struggle in China’s college entrance exam. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 54(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/aeq.12442
ISU Writing Program. (2015, June 18). What is Assessment? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb609JC3_QU
Khan Academy. (2023, December 1). Khan Academy’s official Digtital SAT Prep webinar [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnWG6709flU
Kizlik, B. (2012). Measurement, assessment, and evaluation in education. Retrieved October, 10, 2015.
LEGO Engineering. (2014, June 4). LEGO Engineering - China 2014 [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut7E5FwmsEY
Liu, Y. (2023). A Comparative Study of the University Entrance Examination in China and the USA: From the Perspective of the Social Reproduction Based on SAT and Gaokao. In Research Highlights in Language, Literature and Education: Vol. Vol. 7 (pp. 96–105). https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/rhlle/v7/10622f
Meletiadou, E. (2023). Experimenting with AI-Powered Learning tools and Mobile-Assisted Learning to improve student learning performance, autonomy, and metacognitive skills. In Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series (pp. 21–41). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-8292-6.ch002
Olinghouse, N. G., & Colwell, R. P. (2013). Preparing students with learning Disabilities for Large-Scale Writing Assessments. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49(2), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451213493172
Owan, V. J., Abang, K. B., Idika, D. O., Etta, E. O., & Bassey, B. A. (2023). Exploring the potential of artificial intelligence tools in educational measurement and assessment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(8), em2307. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13428
Paiva, R., & Bittencourt, I. I. (2020). Helping Teachers help their students: A Human-AI Hybrid approach. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 448–459). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52237-7_36
Peltekov, P. (2021). The International English Language Testing System (IELTS): A Critical review. JELTL (Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics), 6(2), 395. https://doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v6i2.581
Rizvi, M. (2023). Exploring the landscape of artificial intelligence in education: Challenges and opportunities. 2023 5th International Congress on Human-Computer Interaction, Optimization and Robotic Applications (HORA). https://doi.org/10.1109/hora58378.2023.10156773
Rueda-Gómez, K. L., Rodríguez‐Muñiz, L. J., & Muñiz‐Rodríguez, L. (2023). Performance and mathematical self-concept in university students using Khan Academy. Heliyon, 9(4), e15441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15441
Ryan Sochol. (2023, November 13). “The Legend of Zelda: A Link to Machine Design” | UMD’s newest engineering course [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7gMclG08vA
Sievertsen, H. H. (2022). Assessments in education. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2208.05826
Slimi, Z., & Villarejo-Carballido, B. (2023). Navigating the ethical challenges of artificial intelligence in Higher Education: An analysis of seven global AI ethics policies. TEM Journal, 590–602. https://doi.org/10.18421/tem122-02
South China Morning Post. (2019, June 7). China’s 2019 gaokao exams [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoRVpz0bUEk
Sun, J. (2023). The Gaokao and its history. In Exploring Education Policy in a Globalized World (pp. 1–23). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0502-7_1
Teachings in Education. (2016, December 18). Assessment in Education: Top 14 examples [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTkQjH-_97c
TED. (2023, May 1). How AI Could Save (Not Destroy) Education | Sal Khan | TED [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJP5GqnTrNo
The Wall Street Journal. (2019, October 1). How China is using artificial intelligence in classrooms | WSJ [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMLsHI8aV0g
Tienken, C. H. (2023). Five things educators should know about standardized tests. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 58(sup1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2022.2156248
UNIV-ENGLISH. (2022, April 23). Assessment and evaluation in education: What’s the difference? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbHWvXr7iW0
Wiliam, D. (2014, April). Formative assessment and contingency in the regulation of learning processes. In Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Zhang, K., & Deng, P. (2022). Exploring the Technology and Problems of Artificial Intelligence Education Applications. 2022 4th International Conference on Computer Science and Technologies in Education (CSTE). https://doi.org/10.1109/cste55932.2022.00056
评论
发表评论