Practices and challenges of using Digital Technologies for Educational Assessment Case of Moroccan universities
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article aims to study, the contribution of the introduction of digital technologies and tools in the correction activity as well as the teaching and evaluation process. The object of this article first relates to the analysis of evaluation procedures in pedagogy, we will also analyze the general context of evolution of evaluation practices, we will present after some practices and the instruments that are already used and what is in general the impact of these tools on the quality of training and on pedagogical performance, finally we will analyze the contribution of the use of a semi-automatic method based on the automatic correction of multiple choice questions used by the all Moroccan universities.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
References
*Delforce B.. Le Bulletin du CERTEIC (Centre de recherches en techniquesd'expression, information et communication de l'université de Lille 3) detévrier 1986 (n" 7), dirigé par B.Delforce, s'intitule uEvaluer les écrits:correcdon des copies, production de textes, démarches d'apprentissage ', 1986.
*BOUD, D. et associés. (2010). Assessment 2020: Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. 4 pages.
*Dietel et al. « any method used to better understand the current knowledge that a student possesses” dans Dietel, R. J.; Herman, J. L. et Knuth, R. A. (1991). What does research say about assessment? NCREL, Oak Brook, cité par Dikli (2003).
*Dirks, M. (1998). “How is Assessment Being Done in Distance Learning?” Paper presented at the NAU/web.98 conference, cite dans Lanier (2006).et Formation, 1999.
*FOURGOUS (2012). Mission parlementaire « apprendre autrement à l’ère du numérique». http://www.missionfourgous -tice.fr/missionfourgous2/IMG/pdf/Rapport_Mission_Fourgous_2_V2.pdf
*Frederiksen, N. (1984). The real test bias: Influences of testing on teaching and learning. American Psychologist, 39, 193–202. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.3.193.
*Gilles, J.-L. et Lovinfosse, V. (2004). Utilisation du cycle SMART de gestion qualité des évaluationsstandardisées dans le contexte d’une Haute Ecole : regard critique en termes de validité, fidélité,sensibilité des mesures, diagnosticité, praticabilité, équité, communicabilité et authenticité,Communication au XIVème congrès de l’Association Mondiale des Sciences de l’Education(AMSE). Santiago du Chili, 10-14 mai 2004.
*JISC. Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). (2010). Effective Assessment in a Digital Age. A guide to technology-enhanced assessment and feedback. 64 pages, 2010.
*Kellough, R.D. et Kellough, N.G. Secondary school teaching: A guide to methods and resources; planning for competence. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1999.
*Chardenet. P.De l’activité évaluative à l’acte d’évaluation. Harmattan, collection Savoir REY, O & FEYFANT, A. (2014). Evaluer pour (mieux) faire apprendre. Dossier de veille de l’IFE, n°94, Septembre 2014.
*RIZZA, Caroline; MORIN, Sigolène; LEMARCHAND, Sarah. (2006). « L’évaluation "instrumentée" en FOAD : une approche communicationnelle de cette activité tutorale entre diagnostic du dispositif et suivi de l'apprenant ». International Journal of Information Sciences for Decision Making, Numéro spécial 25, TICE Méditerranée, "L’humain dans la formation à distance , les enjeux de l’évaluation ", Gênes, 26-27 mai. 12 pages.
*TAROUCO, Liane et HACK, Luciano. (2000). “New tools for assessment in distance education”. In D. Willis et autres (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2000 Chesapeake, VA, AACE. Pages 241-244.