Measurement-evaluation applications of context-based activities in hybrid learning environments

Abstract

Students may be at a disadvantage when learning if they cannot follow lessons face to face due to such reasons as epidemics, disasters, transportation, or family. The main purpose of this study is to perform alternative measurement and evaluation practices in hybrid learning environments in a way that will make students in online physics lessons active participants in the process. The research uses the developmental, emancipatory, and critical action research models within the scope of the qualitative research method. The research was carried out over three weeks under the guidance of the researcher with 32 10th-graders at the school where the researcher taught physics for 12 years. Semi-structured interview forms, rubric forms, and documents were used as data collection tools. The interviews and documents were evaluated using content analysis, while the rubrics were evaluated using descriptive analysis. The students’ active and decisive roles during the assessment and evaluation activities within the context-based learning activities regarding physics subjects as well as at the end of learning encouraged the students attending the lesson online and those attending in person to learn under the same conditions. In this context, activities in which students are a part of the learning and measurement-evaluation processes should be encouraged in online and hybrid-learning environments. Developing context-based activities with regard to experiments, analogy, and theoretical applications and developing qualified practices in which students will be active throughout the process under the guidance of action researchers will be beneficial for ensuring this.

Keywords

• Measurement-evaluation
• Context-based learning
• Hybrid learning
• Science education
• Covid-19

References

1. Avargil, S., Herscovitz, O., & Dori, Y.J. (2012). Teaching thinking skills in context-based learning: Teachers’ challenges and assessment knowledge. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(2), 207-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9302-7
2. Benito, Á., Dogan Yenisey, K., Khanna, K., Masis, M.F., Monge, R.M., Tugtan, M.A., ... & Vig, R. (2021). Changes that should remain in higher education post COVID-19: A mixed-methods analysis of the experiences at three universities. Higher Learning Research Communications, 11, 51-75. https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v11i0.1195
3. Chase, C.C., Malkiewich, L., & S Kumar, A. (2019). Learning to notice science concepts in engineering activities and transfer situations. Science Education, 103(2), 440 471. https://doi.org/440-471.10.1002/sce.21496
4. Corcoran, C.A., Dershimer, E.L., & Tichenor, M.S. (2004). A teacher's guide to alternative assessment: Taking the first steps. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 77(5), 213-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21496
5. Crawford, M.L. (2001). Teaching contextually: Research, rationale, and techniques for improving student motivation and achievement in mathematics and science. CCI Publishing.
6. De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W.R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-201.
7. Dexter, S., & Richardson, J.W. (2020). What does technology integration research tell us about the leadership of technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(1), 17-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1668316
8. Dicle Erdamar, I.Y. (2019). Lise Fizik dersi öğretim programının program geliştirme bağlamında analizi [Analysis of High School Physics Curriculum in The Context of Program Development]. Harran Education Journal, 4(2), 29 44. http://dx.doi.org/10.22596/2019.0402.29.44

9. Edelson, D.C., Gordin, D.N., & Pea, R.D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3-4), 391-450. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1999.9672075
10. Fisher, C., Dwyer, D.C., & Yocam, K. (1996). Education & technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
11. Freeman, M. (1995). Peer assessment by groups of group work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 20(3), 289-300.
12. Hansman, C.A. (2001). Context‐based adult learning. New directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 43-52.
13. Koçoglu, E., & Tekdal, D. (2020). Analysis of distance education activities conducted during COVID 19 pandemic. Educational Research and Reviews, 15(9), 536 543. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2020.4033
14. Makhachashvili, R. (2021). Digital hybrid learning individual quality assessment in european and oriental languages programs: Student case study in Ukraine. In 14th International Conference on ICT, Society, and Human Beings, ICT 2021 (Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 11-22). International Association for Development of the Information Society (IADIS).
15. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
16. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (2015). Nitel veri analizi: Genişletilmiş bir kaynak kitap (Çev. Ed. S. Akbaba-Altun & A. Ersoy). Pegem Akademi.
17. Murray, M.C., Pérez, J., Geist, D., & Hedrick, A. (2012). Student interaction with online course content: Build it and they might come. Journal of Information Technology Education Research, 11(1), 125-140.
18. Nassaji, H. (2015). Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 129 132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815572747
19. Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evidence Based Nursing, 18(2), 34 35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/eb 2015 102054
20. Pathoni, H., Ashar, R., & Huda, N. (2021). Analysis student needs for the development of contextual-based STEM approach learning media in online learning: An evidence from Universities in Jambi, Indonesia. International Journal on Research in STEM Education, 3(1), 17-26.
21. Patri, M. (2002). The influence of peer feedback on self-and peer-assessment of oral skills. Language testing, 19(2), 109-131. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt224oa
22. Potra, S., Pugna, A., Pop, M.D., Negrea, R., & Dungan, L. (2021). Facing COVID-19 challenges: 1st-year students’ experience with the Romanian hybrid higher educational system. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(6), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063058
23. Reuge, N., Jenkins, R., Brossard, M., Soobrayan, B., Mizunoya, S., Ackers, J., ... & Taulo, W.G. (2021). Education response to COVID 19 pandemic, a special issue proposed by UNICEF: Editorial review. International Journal of Educational Development, 87, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102485
24. Senel, S., & Senel, H.C. (2021). Remote assessment in higher education during COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 8(2), 181-199. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.820140
25. Stuessy, C.L., Parrott, J.A. & Foster, A.S. (2003). Mathematics and science classroom observation profile system (M-SCOPS): Using classroom observation to analyze the how and what of mathematics. In Annual Meeting of the School Science and Mathematics Association.
26. Sulistiyono, E., Missriani, M., & Fitriani, Y. (2021). Constructivism and contextual based learning in improving Indonesian language learning outcomes in elementary school using online learning techniques in the middle of the Covid 19 pandemic. JPGI (Jurnal Penelitian Guru Indonesia), 6(1), 304-309. https://doi.org/10.29210/021037jpgi0005
27. Syafril, S., Latifah, S., Engkizar, E., Damri, D., Asril, Z., & Yaumas, N.E. (2021, February). Hybrid learning on problem-solving abiities in physics learning: A literature review. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1796, No. 1, p. 012021). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1796/1/01202
28. Tarkar, P. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on education system. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(9), 3812-3814.
29. Triyason, T., Tassanaviboon, A., & Kanthamanon, P. (2020). Hybrid classroom: Designing for the new normal after COVID-19 pandemic. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology (pp. 1 8). https://doi.org/10.1145/3406601.3406635
30. Utami, W.S., Ruja, I.N., & Utaya, S. (2016). React (relating, experiencing, applying, cooperative, transferring) strategy to develop geography skills. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(17), 100-104.
31. Villegas-Ch, W., Palacios-Pacheco, X., Roman-Cañizares, M., & Luján-Mora, S. (2021). Analysis of educational data in the current state of university learning for the transition to a hybrid education model. Applied Sciences, 11(5), 1 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11052068
32. Williams, P. (2008). Assessing context based learning: Not only rigorous but also relevant. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 395 408. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701562890
33. Xie, X., Siau, K., & Nah, F.F.H. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic–online education in the new normal and the next normal. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 22(3), 175-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2020.1824884
34. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences]. Seçkin.
35. Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage.
36. Yu, K.C., Fan, S.C., & Lin, K.Y. (2015). Enhancing students’ problem solving skills through context based learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(6), 1377-1401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9567-4