The Effectiveness of Formative E-assessment with DingTalk on Academic Achievement, Engagement and Satisfaction of Advertising Copywriting Course Students
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Integrating technology into formative assessment is currently a focal point in educational research. This research aimed to analyze the role of utilizing formative e-assessment with DingTalk in advertising copywriting class for students’ academic achievement, engagement, and satisfaction. Students from the Advertising Copywriting course at a university in China have participated as a sample for the study. Through quasi-experimental research, the effectiveness of formative e-assessment with DingTalk was tested by comparing the differences of improving score of four groups obtained through the pretest and post-test. At the end of the quasi-experiment period, an engagement survey was used to compare students' engagement levels between the experimental and control groups, and a satisfaction survey was administered to determine students’ perspectives of the class by introducing formative e-assessment with DingTalk. The results revealed that there was a statistically significant difference among groups on improving scores: F (3, 150) = 26.539, p =.000. It indicated that formative e-assessment with DingTalk as the treatment had a significant effect on improving academic achievement. The creativity, writing ability, and conceptual knowledge of academic achievement were all significantly improved (p <0.05). Among them, creativity increased the most. Based on the analysis of surveys, the data suggests that students’ engagement scores between the experimental and control groups were statistically significant different, t (152) = 2.693, p = .008. In addition, students in the experimental group expressed their high level of satisfaction with the intervention—formative e-assessment with DingTalk (M=4.48). The experiment revealed that this intervention could improve students' academic achievement and engagement in the course, as well as students' satisfaction. This finding contributes to the understanding of effective strategies of technology integration, enriching the field of formative e-assessment and guiding future research and practices.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Views and opinions appearing in the Journal it is the responsibility of the author of the article, and does not constitute the view and responsibility of the editorial team.
References
Alexander, C. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University.
Beevers, C. et al. (2010). What can e-assessment do for learning and teaching. Part 1of a draft of current and emerging practice: review by the E-Assessment Association Expert Panel (presented by John Winkley of Alpha Plus on behalf of the panel). In Proceedings of the International Computer Assisted Assessment (CAA) Conference, 20th -21st July 2010. Southampton: University of Southampton.
Bick, R., Chang, M., Wang, K. W., & Yu, T. (2020, March 23). A blueprint for remote working: Lessons from China. McKinsey Digital. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/a-blueprint-for-remote-working-lessons-from-china
Cai, L. (2022). Research on blended learning based on rain classroom and DingTalk live broadcast under the BOPPPS model. Frontiers in Educational Research, 5(4), 89-95.
Chen, X., & Cleesuntorn, A. (2023). French horn students’ performance improvement and their perceptions of learning through synchronous virtual classroom: An empirical research at Hunan Normal University. Scholar: Human Sciences, 15(2), 75-86.
Chen, Z., Jiao, J., & Hu, K. (2021). Formative assessment as an online instruction intervention: Student engagement, outcomes, and perceptions. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET), 19(1), 50-65.
Clements, M. D., & Cord, B. A. (2013). Assessment guiding learning: Developing graduate qualities in an experiential learning programme. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(1), 114-124.
Cohen, D., & Sasson, I. (2016). Online quizzes in a virtual learning environment as a tool for formative assessment. JOTSE, 6(3), 188-208.
Daly, C., Pachler, N., Mor, Y., & Mellar, H. (2010). Exploring formative e‐assessment: using case stories and design patterns. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 619-636.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
Earley, P. C., Northcraft, G. B., Lee, C., & Lituchy, T. R. (1990). Impact of process and outcome feedback on the relation of goal setting to task performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 87-105.
Eka Mahendra, I. W. et al. (2020). Teachers’ Formative Assessment: Accessing Students’ High Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)?. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 12(12), 180-202.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
Gardner, H. (1983). The theory of multiple intelligences. Heinemann.
Golub, J. (1988). Focus on collaborative learning classroom practices in teaching english. Natl Council of Teachers.
Hair, J. F., Bush, R. P., & Ortinau, D. J. (2003). Marketing research: Within a changing information environment. McGraw-Hill.
Hasanah, S. U., Parno, P., Hidayat, A., Supriana, E., Yuliati, L., Latifah, E., & Ali, M. (2023, January). Building students' creative thinking ability through STEM integrated project-based learning with formative assessment on thermodynamics topics. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2569, No. 1). AIP Publishing.
Jiao, H. (2015). Enhancing students' engagement in learning through a formative e-assessment tool that motivates students to take action on feedback. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 20(1), 9-18.
Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486-490.
Lajane, H. et al. (2021) ‘A scenario of the formative e-assessment based on the ARCS model: What is the impact on student motivation in educational context?’. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 16(24), 135-148.
Li, J. (2021). Research and Practice of Research and Practice of "Three-Dimension and Five-Style" Teaching Mode for Online College English Based on Dingtalk Platform. Transactions on Comparative Education, 3(4), 31-36. DOI: 10.23977/trance.2021.030406
McCallum, S., & Milner, M. M. (2021). The effectiveness of formative assessment: Student views and staff reflections. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 1-16.
McKenzie, W. (2005) Multiple intelligences and instructional technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology.
Mohamadi, Z. (2018). Comparative effect of online summative and formative assessment on EFL student writing ability. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 29-40.
Moharreri, K., Ha, M., & Nehm, R. H. (2014). EvoGrader: an online formative assessment tool for automatically evaluating written evolutionary explanations. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 7, 1-14.
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15, 625-632.
Ozkan, S., & Koseler, R. (2009). Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1285-1296.
Palmer, E. J., & Devitt, P.G. (2008). Limitations of student-driven formative assessment in a clinical clerkship. A randomised controlled
trial. BMC Medical Education, 8(1), 1-7. DOI:10.1186/1472-6920-8-29
Pekrun, R., Cusack, A., Murayama, K., Elliot, A. J., & Thomas, K. (2014). The power of anticipated feed- back: Effects on students’ achievement goals and achievement emotions. Learning and Instruction, 29, 115-124.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, 78(1), 153-189.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and students' engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581.
Song, B., Sun, Y., Guo, J., Zhao, D., & Tan, J. (2021). Novel coronavirus pneumonia based on the DingTalk platform teaching method in the teaching of Pathogenic Biology. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 245, pp. 03029). EDP Sciences.
Turner, R. C., & Carlson, L. (2003). Indexes of item-objective congruence for multidimensional items. International Journal of Testing, 3(2), 163-171.
William, D. (2007). Keeping learning on track: Classroom assessment and the regulation of learning. Information Age Publishing.
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Rowntree, J., & Parker, M. (2017). It’d be useful, but I wouldn't t use it: Barriers to university students’ feedback seeking and recipience. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 2026-2041.
Xu, Z., & Shi, Y. (2018). Application of constructivist theory in flipped classroom-take college English teaching as a case study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(7), 880-887.
Zhang, Y., Dai, C., Pi, Z., & Yang, J. (2022). Pre-class teacher feedback in the flipped classroom: cognitive or praise feedback is better than mitigating feedback. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1-11.
Zhou, H. (2023). Study of oral English blended learning and teaching model. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Internet Technology and Educational Informatization, ITEI 2022, December 23-25, 2022, Harbin, China.