University Students’ Perspectives Regarding Observed and Expected Learning Assessment Methods: Tool Development and National Exploration*
AbstractThe aims of this study were to (1) develop and validate a tool for measuring university assessment methods; (2) describe students’ perspectives regarding observed and expected assessment methods (authentic, formative, diagnostic, summative); and (3) examine differences in students’ perspectives regarding observed assessment methods based on their gender, academic field, and academic level. A cross-sectional descriptive survey was utilized with a sample of 1155 students. A stratified random sampling procedure was used to select a representative sample. A series of validation steps were used to examine the developed measure and an exploratory factor analysis with principal components analysis was used to examine its factor structure, which all supported the stability of the measure. Findings indicated that the most commonly used assessment method was the summative, followed by formative, diagnostic, and authentic methods, respectively. Expected assessment scores were significantly higher than observed scores. Female students had significantly higher scores on the authentic, formative, and diagnostic assessment. Students in the scientific field scored significantly higher on the authentic assessment than those in the humanities. Master students scored significantly higher than bachelors students on the authentic, formative, and diagnostic assessment. There is a need to design specialized training programs for university teachers in Jordan on each of the modern assessment methods and help them link these methods with the intended learning outcomes and effectiveness of teaching. Feedback from students should be weaved in any efforts to promote the assessment process in higher education.
How to Cite
AlKhayat, M. (2021). University Students’ Perspectives Regarding Observed and Expected Learning Assessment Methods: Tool Development and National Exploration*. Dirasat: Human and Social Sciences, 48(4). Retrieved from http://archives.ju.edu.jo/index.php/hum/article/view/110826