علوم تربیتی

شماره جاری

بر اساس شماره‌های نشریه

بر اساس نویسندگان

بر اساس موضوعات

نمایه نویسندگان

نمایه کلیدواژه ها

درباره نشریه

اهداف و چشم انداز

اعضای هیات تحریریه

اصول اخلاقی انتشار مقاله

بانک ها و نمایه نامه ها

پیوندهای مفید

پرسش‌های متداول

فرایند پذیرش مقالات

اطلاعات آماری نشریه

اخبار و اعلانات

ساخت روبریک برای ارزشیابی سنجش کلاسی عادلانه در دانشگاه تهران: مطالعه به روش آمیخته اکتشافی

نوع مقاله : علمی- پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری سنجش و اندازه گیری، دانشکده روان شناسی و علوم تربیتی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 استادیار دانشکده روان شناسی و علوم‌تربیتی؛ دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

3 دانشیار دانشکده روان شناسی و علوم تربیتی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

4 عضو هیات علمی دانشکده روان شناسی و علوم تربیتی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

5 استادیار، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

هدف اصلی این پژوهش ساخت روبریکی برای ارزشیابی عدالت در سنجش کلاسی بود. بدین‌‌منظور مبتنی بر روش پژوهش آمیخته اکتشافی دو مطالعه به انجام رسید که در مطالعه اول با استفاده از نمونه‌گیری هدفمند از نوع ملاکی 39 مصاحبه فردی با مطلعان کلیدی شامل اعضای هیأت علمی و دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی دانشگاه تهران، یک مصاحبه گروهی و یک مصاحبه گروه کانونی انجام شد و در مطالعه دوم، از میان دانشجویان دانشگاه تهران تعداد 511 نفر از طریق نمونه‌گیری خوشه‌ای سه‌مرحله‌ای انتخاب شدند. تحلیل داده‌های کیفی به شناسایی مدلی مفهومی شامل چهار مضمون اصلی «عدالت رویه ای»، «عدالت تعاملی»، «ماهیت سنجش» و «عدالت در آزمون کتبی» مبنای تدوین ملاک ها و ساخت روبریک انجامید. در مطالعه دوم، ویژگی‌های روان‌سنجی روبریک با استفاده از روایی محتوایی، تحلیل گویه ها، روایی سازه و تعیین پایایی بررسی شد. روایی محتوایی هر یک از ملاک ها بالاتر از مقدار معیار 0/78 و روایی مقیاس کلی 94/0به دست‌آمد. نتایج تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی نشان دهنده استخراج سه عامل عدالت‌ رویه ای، ماهیت سنجش و عدالت تعاملی بود که در مجموع 57/08 کل واریانس متغیرها را تبیین می کردند. نتایج تحلیل عاملی به همراه بررسی ضرایب تمیز و دشواری گویه‌ها منجر به حذف سه ملاک ضعیف شد و روبریک با 17 ملاک نهایی گردید. آلفای کرونباح محاسبه‌شده برای عدالت رویه‌ای، ماهیت سنجش و عدالت تعاملی به‌ترتیب 0/87، 0/84و 0/79به دست آمد. همچنین ضریب بازآزمایی برای آن ها در حد مطلوب و به ترتیب 0/65، 0/63و 0/54محاسبه شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Construction of a rubric to evaluate fair classroom assessment at the university of Tehran: An exploratory mixed method study

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Baniasadi 1
  • Keyvan Salehi 2
  • Ebrahim Khodaie 3
  • khosrow bagheri 4
  • Balal izanloo 5

1 Ph.D. student, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant professor, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

3 Associate professor, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

4 Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran,, Tehran, Iran,

5 Associate Professor, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Introduction
Fairness is an important quality of classroom assessment as a continuous process that affects learners' beliefs, mentality, motivation, satisfaction, and performance. The main purpose of this study was to construct a rubric for evaluating fairness in classroom assessment.
Method
For this purpose, based on an exploratory sequential mixed methods design, two studies were conducted. In the first study, using purposive sampling of the criterion type, 39 individual interviews with key informants including faculty members and graduate students of the University of Tehran, a group interview and a Focus group interview was conducted and in the second study, 511 students from the University of Tehran were selected through three-stage cluster sampling. Qualitative data analysis led to the identification of a conceptual model including the four main themes of "procedural fairness", "interactional fairness", "nature of assessment" and "fairness in the paper-pencil test" as the basis for the development of criteria and making Rubric. In the second study, the psychometric properties of Rubric were investigated using content validity, item analysis, construct validity and reliability determination.
Results
The content validity of each criterion was higher than the standard value of 0.78 and the validity of the overall scale was 0.94. The results of exploratory factor analysis showed the extraction of three factors of procedural fairness, the nature of measurement and interactional fairness, which explained 57.08% of the total variance of variables. The results of factor analysis along with the study of discrimination and difficulty coefficients of items led to the elimination of three weak criteria and the final rubric was compiled with 17 criteria. The calculated Cronbach's alpha for procedural fairness, the nature of assessment and interactional fairness were 0.87, 0.84 and 0.79, respectively. Also, the retest coefficient for them was calculated at the desired level and 0.65, 0.63 and 0.54, respectively.
Discussion
According to the desirable psychometric properties of the rubric, this rubric can help to increase the literacy of professors, increase the quality of teaching and assessment and strengthen the civic and educational behaviors of students by identifying the strengths and weaknesses of professors in the field of fairness.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Rubric,
  • Exploratory Mixed Method, Classroom Assessment
  • Assessing Student Performance, Fair assessment
مراجع
Allal, L. (2013). Teachers’ Professional Judgement in Assessment: A Cognitive Act and a Socially Situated Practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(1), 20–34.
Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2006). Rubrics: Tools for making learning goals and evaluation criteria explicit for both teachers and learners. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 5(3), 197–203.
Baniasadi, A., & Pourshafei, H. (2013). Validation of Studying Approaches Test (validity and reliability of revised short form). Journal of Educational Scinces, 20(1), 221-242. [Persian]
Bani Asadi, A., Salehi, K., Khodaie, E., Bagheri Noaparast, K., Izanloo, B. (2021). Students’ perceptions of fair classroom assessment: A qualitative study. Educational Measurement and Evaluation Studies, 11(35), 68-88. doi: 10.22034/emes.2021.249163 [Persian]
Baniasadi, A., Salehi, K., Khodaei, E., Bagheri, Kh., & Izanloo, B. (2022). Fairness in classroom assessment: A systematic review. The asia pacific education researcher. 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00636-z
Bempechat, J., Ronfard, S., Li, J., Mirny, A., & Holloway, S. D. (2013). She always gives grades lower than one deserves: A qualitatve study of  Russian adolescent’perceptions of fairness in the classroom. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 7(4), 169- 187.
Brame, C. J. (2019). Rubrics: Tools to Make Grading More Fair and Efficient Sci. Teach. Essentials, 175–184.
Brookhart, S. M. (2003). Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purposes and uses. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(4), 5–12.
Burger, R., & Gross, M. (2016). Fairness and university dropout. The role of grading procedures in the development of dropout intentions. Zeitschrift fur Erziehungswissenschaft, 19(3), 625-647.
Chory‐Assad, R. M. (2002). Classroom justice: Perceptions of fairness as a predictor of student motivation, learning, and aggression. Communication Quarterly, 50(1), 58–77.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386.
Daas, R., Dijkstra, A. B., & Karsten, S. (2019). Assessing young people’s citizenship attitudes using rubrics. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 62, 118–128 
De la Rosa Gómez, A., Meza Cano, J. M., & Miranda Díaz, G. A. (2019). Validation of a Rubric to Evaluate Open Educational Resources for Learning. Behavioral Sciences, 9(12), 126-134.
DeLuca, C. (2012). Preparing teachers for the age of accountability: Toward a framework for assessment education. Action in Teacher Education, 34(5–6), 576–591.
Duplaga, E. A., & Astani, M. (2010). An exploratory study of student perceptions of which classroom policies are fairest. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 8(1), 9–33.
Ghanbari, S., Ardalan, M, R., & Karimi, I. (2015). Effect of the Challenges of Student Learnings Evaluation on Deliberate Practice Study Approach. Educ Strategy Med Sci, 8(2), 105-113. [Persian]
Ghorbankhani, M., Salehi, K., & Moghaddam Zadeh, A. (2020). Construction of a Standardized Questionnaire to Detect the Pseudo Evaluation in Elementary Schools. Journal of Educational Scinces, 27(2), 91-116. doi: 10.22055/edus.2020.35053.3114 [Persian]
Golparvar, M. (2015). The Role of Educational Ethics in Relation between Educational Justice and Injustice with Educational Cheating: Structural Equation Modeling. Educational Psychology, 11(37), 51-67. [Persian]
González-Chordá, V. M., Mena-Tudela, D., Salas-Medina, P. S., Cervera-Gasch, A., Orts-Cortés, I., & Maciá-Soler, L. (2016). Assessment of bachelor's theses in a nursing degree with a rubrics system: Development and validation study, Nurse Education Today, 37, 103–107.
Gordon, M. E., & Fay, C. H. (2010). The effects of grading and teaching practices on students’ perceptions of grading fairness. College Teaching, 58(3), 93–98.
Green, S. K., Johnson, R. L., Kim, D.H., & Pope, N. S. (2007). Ethics in classroom assessment practices: Issues and attitudes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 999–1011.
Ishak, Z., & Fin, L. S. (2013). Truants’ and Teachers’ Behaviors in the Classroom. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103.
Johnson, R. L., Green, S. K., Kim, D.H., & Pope, N. S. (2008). Educational leaders’ perceptions about ethical practices in student evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(4), 520–530.
Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130–144.
Krishnan, V. (2013). The early child development instrument (EDI): An item analysis using classical test theory (CTT) on Alberta’s data. Early Child Development Mapping (ECMap) Project Alberta, Community-University Partnership (CUP), Faculty of Extension, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
Lemons, M., & Seaton, J. (2011). Justice in the classroom: Does fairness determine student cheating behaviors? Journal of Academic Administration in Higher Education, 7(1).
Liu, J., Johnson, R., & Fan, X. (2016). A comparative study of Chinese and United States pre-service teachers’ perceptions about ethical issues in classroom assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 48, 57-66.
Marzooqi, R., Heidari, M., & Heidari, A. (2013). Investigating the relationship between educational justice and academic burnout of students of the University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences. Strides In Development Of Medical Education, 10(3), 210-216. [Persian]
Pancorbo, G., Primi, R., John, O. P., Santos, D., Abrahams, L., & De Fruyt, F. (2020). Development and psychometric properties of rubrics for assessing social-emotional skills in youth. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 67, 100938.
Pepper, M. B., & Pathak, S. (2008). Classroom contribution: What do students perceive as fair assessment? Journal of Education for Business, 83(6), 360–368.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489–497.
Rodabaugh, R. C. (1994). College students’ perceptions of unfairness in the classroom. To Improve the Academy, 13(1), 269–282.
Schmidt, T. A., Houston, M. B., Bettencourt, L. A., & Boughton, P. D. (2003). The impact of voice and justification on students’ perceptions of professors’ fairness. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(2), 177–186.
Seraji, F., Maroofi, Y., & Razeqi, T. (2013). Identifying the challenges of evaluating what students have learned in the Iranian higher education system. Educational Measurement and Evaluation Studies, 4(5), 54-33. [Persian]
Sharifi, H. (2009). Principles of psychometrics and psychoanalysis. Rishd. [Persian]
Usman-Stillman, A. S., Englund, M., Webb, C., & Grenell, A. (2018). Reliability and validity of a measure of preschool children’s theatre arts skills: The Preschool Theatre Arts Rubric. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 45, 249-262.
Tata, J. (2005). The influence of national culture on the perceived fairness of grading procedures: A comparison of the United States and China. The Journal of Psychology, 139(5), 401–412.
Tierney, R. D. (2013). Fairness in classroom assessment. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.). SAGE Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tierney, R. D. (2014). Fairness as a Multifaceted Quality in Classroom Assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 43, 55–69.
Vaghoor Kashani, M., Haji Hossein Nejad, G., Moosapour, N., & Ebrahim Zadeh, I. (2019). Designing and Validating a Conceptual Model for the Evaluation of Teachers' Professional Competencies in Iran. Journal of Educational Scinces, 26(2), 27-50. doi: 10.22055/edus.2019.29678.2818 [Persian]
علوم تربیتی
دوره 29، شماره 2
آذر 1401
صفحه 211-234
فایل ها
هم رسانی
ارجاع به این مقاله
آمار