LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات20
تعداد شماره‌ها1,157
تعداد مقالات10,573
تعداد مشاهده مقاله45,915,993
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله11,583,573
Asefi, Hootsa, Zarifsanaiey, Nahid, Bazrafkan, Leila, Navipour, Elham. (1403). Exploring Fairness in Online Nursing Assessments: Insights from Nursing Professors and Students. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 15(4), 343-354. doi: 10.30476/ijvlms.2024.104821.1321
Hootsa Asefi; Nahid Zarifsanaiey; Leila Bazrafkan; Elham Navipour. "Exploring Fairness in Online Nursing Assessments: Insights from Nursing Professors and Students". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 15, 4, 1403, 343-354. doi: 10.30476/ijvlms.2024.104821.1321
Asefi, Hootsa, Zarifsanaiey, Nahid, Bazrafkan, Leila, Navipour, Elham. (1403). 'Exploring Fairness in Online Nursing Assessments: Insights from Nursing Professors and Students', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 15(4), pp. 343-354. doi: 10.30476/ijvlms.2024.104821.1321
Asefi, Hootsa, Zarifsanaiey, Nahid, Bazrafkan, Leila, Navipour, Elham. Exploring Fairness in Online Nursing Assessments: Insights from Nursing Professors and Students. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1403; 15(4): 343-354. doi: 10.30476/ijvlms.2024.104821.1321

Exploring Fairness in Online Nursing Assessments: Insights from Nursing Professors and Students

Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences
مقاله 4، دوره 15، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 59، اسفند 2024، صفحه 343-354    اصل مقاله (545.12 K)
نوع مقاله: Original Article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30476/ijvlms.2024.104821.1321
نویسندگان
Hootsa Asefi1؛ Nahid Zarifsanaiey* 2؛ Leila Bazrafkan3؛ Elham Navipour1
1Department of Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
2Department of E-learning in Medical Sciences, Virtual School and Center of Excellence in E-learning, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
3Clinical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
چکیده
Background: Fairness in online assessment encompasses the equitable and unbiased evaluation of students' knowledge and skills within a digital learning environment, and it is one of the most critical aspects of assessment. This study examined the perceptions of nursing professors and students regarding the fairness of online exams at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS), Shiraz, Iran.
Methods: This qualitative study was conducted using content thematic analysis. The participants were seven nursing professors and 21 nursing students selected from the school of nursing at SUMS, Iran, using purposive sampling from June 2021 to September 2022. To collect data, semi-structured interviews were conducted individually and online across various platforms until data saturation was reached. The study incorporated researcher reviews, peer evaluations, and oversight by an external observer to ensure data accuracy. Four criteria of Lincoln and Guba were considered to evaluate scientific accuracy and strength.
Results: The research revealed three primary themes: fairness, challenges, and strategies for practical online nursing assessments. These themes encompassed 10 categories and 33 subcategories. Both participant groups highlighted the significance of content validity and assessing diverse cognitive skills. However, potential nursing faculty bias and constraints of online testing formats were identified as challenges to achieving fair evaluation.
Conclusion: The study highlighted the necessity for ongoing enhancements in the design and execution of online nursing examinations to achieve increased fairness and effectiveness. Established procedures ensured data accuracy and research strength.

تازه های تحقیق

Hootsa Asefi (Google Scholar)

Nahid Zarifsanaiey (Google Scholar)

کلیدواژه‌ها
Fairness؛ Online Exam؛ Perception؛ Nursing؛ Students؛ Assessment؛ Professors
مراجع
  1. Nisbet I, Shaw S. Fair high-stakes assessment in the long shadow of Covid-19. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2022;29(5):518-33. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2022.2067834.
  2. Mislevy RJ, Haertel G, Cheng BH, Ructtinger L, DeBarger A, Murray E, Rose D, Gravel J, Colker AM, Rutstein D, Vendlinski T. A “conditional” sense of fairness in assessment. Educational Research and Evaluation. 2013;19(2–3): 121–140. doi: 1080/13803611.2013.767614.
  3. Malgieri G, Comandé G. Why a right to legibility of automated decision-making exists in the general data protection regulation. International Data Privacy Law. 2017;7(4):243-65. doi: 10.1093/idpl/ipx019.
  4. Gupta A, Sawhney S, Nanda A, Shabaz M, Ofori I. Transforming Learning to Online Education 4.0 during COVID‐19: Stakeholder Perception, Attitude, and Experiences in Higher Education Institutions at a Tier‐III City in India. Education Research International. 2023(1):3217552. doi: 10.1155/2023/3217552.
  5. Kane MJ, Smeekens BA, Meier ME, Welhaf MS, Phillips NE. Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports. Behav Res Methods. 2021;53(6):2372-2411. doi: 10.3758/s13428-021-01557-x. Erratum in: Behav Res Methods. 2021;53(6):2743. doi: 10.3758/s13428-021-01685-4. PubMed PMID: 33835393; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8613094.
  6. Wilbrink B. Assessment in Historical Perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 1997;23(1),31–48. doi: 10.1016/s0191-491x(97)00003-5.
  7. Heidarzadeh A, Ali Beik SP, Hashemi HZ, Parvasideh P. Exploring Faculty Members Perspective on the Implementation of Take-home Assessments in Medical Education during the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Qualitative Study. Future of Medical Education Journal. 2022;12(3): 29-36. doi: 10.22038/fmej.2022.59352.1421.
  8. DeCoito I, Estaiteyeh M. Online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: exploring science/STEM teachers’ curriculum and assessment practices in Canada. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res. 2022;4(1):8. doi:10.1186/s43031-022-00048-z%20. PubMed PMID:37520635%20;  PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8899456.
  9. Mate K, Weidenhofer J. Considerations and strategies for effective online assessment with a focus on the biomedical sciences. FASEB Bioadv. 2022;4(1):9. doi: /10.1096/fba.2021-00075. PubMed PMID:35024569; PubMed Central PMCID:PMC8728109.
  10. Cheng C, Crumbley DL. Student and professor use of publisher test banks and implications for fair play. Journal of Accounting Education. 2018;42:1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccedu.2017.12.001.
  11. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-57. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042. PubMed PMID:17872937.
  12. Moghadas T, Kesbakhi MS. Factors influencing implementation of nursing process by nursing students: a qualitative study. Factors Influencing Implementation of Nursing Process by Nursing Students: A Qualitative Study. J Med Edu. 2020;19(4):e110810. doi: 5812/jme.110810.
  13. Oermann MH, Gaberson KB, De Gagne JC. Evaluation and testing in nursing education. Springer Publishing Company; 2024. doi: 10.1891/9780826139177.
  14. Tepgec M, Ifenthaler D. From data to outcomes: Experimental learning analytics insights. Smart Learning Environments in the Post Pandemic Era. 2024:19-37. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-54207-7_2.
  15. Njiri SO, Asesa E, Olel M. Total quality management approach as a measure of quality in TVET colleges in Kenya. European Journal of Education Studies. 2024;11(1). doi: 10.46827/ejes.v11i1.5190.
  16. Gill GS, Tsai J, Moxam J, Sanghvi HA, Gupta S. Comparison of Gemini Advanced and ChatGPT 4.0’s Performances on the Ophthalmology Resident Ophthalmic Knowledge Assessment Program (OKAP) Examination Review Question Banks. Cureus. 2024;16(9):e69612. doi: 10.7759/cureus.69612.
  17. Winstone NE, Boud D. The need to disentangle assessment and feedback in higher education. Studies in higher education. 2022;47(3):656-67. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1779687.
  18. Feeney Á, Everett S. Understanding Supervision and Assessment in Nursing. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2022. doi: 10.4135/9781526489524.
  19. Sofi-Karim M, Bali AO, Rached K. Online education via media platforms and applications as an innovative teaching method. Educ Inf Technol (Dordr). 2023;28(1):507-23. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11188-0. PubMed PMID: 35791317; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9247945.
  20. Mazzoli Smith L, Todd L, Laing K. Students’ views on fairness in education: the importance of relational justice and stakes fairness. Research Papers in Education. 2018;33(3):336-53. doi: 10.1080/02671522.2017.1302500.
  21. Golden J, Kohlbeck M. Addressing cheating when using test bank questions in online classes. Journal of Accounting Education. 2020;52:100671. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccedu.2020.100671.
  22. Lee VW, Lam PL, Lo JT, Lee JL, Li JT. Rethinking online assessment from university students’ perspective in COVID-19 pandemic. Cogent Education. 2022;9(1):2082079. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2022.2082079.
  23. McGowan C. Career and Technical Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Professional Development Needs: AQ Methodology Study [Dissertation]. Texas: East Texas A&M University; 2023. Available from: https://digitalcommons.tamuc.edu/etd/1082.
  24. Zolfaghari Z, Karimian Z, Mehrfar A. Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci. 2024;15(1):1-17. doi: 10.30476/ijvlms.2024.101714.1291.
  25. Kavanagh JM. Crisis in Competency: A Defining Moment in Nursing Education. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing. 2021;26(1). doi: 10.3912/OJIN.Vol26No01Man02.
  26. England B, Brigati J, Schussler E, Chen M. Student Anxiety and Perception of Difficulty Impact Performance and Persistence in Introductory Biology Courses. CBE Life Sci Educ.2019 Summer;18(2):ar21. doi: 10.1187/cbe.17-12-0284. PubMed PMID: 31120397; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6755222. 
  27. Fung CY, Su SI, Perry EJ, Garcia MB. Development of a socioeconomic inclusive assessment framework for online learning in higher education. In: Socioeconomic inclusion during an era of online education. Hershey: IGI Global; 2022. p. 23-46. doi: 10.4018/978-1-6684-4364-4.ch002.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 44
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 24


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب