Volume 03 Issue 02-2023
1
International Journal of Pedagogics
(ISSN
–
2771-2281)
VOLUME
03
I
SSUE
02
Pages:
01-05
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
676
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
The effectiveness of instructional technology depends on appropriate evaluation of the technology, with special focus
on outcomes. Because evaluation assesses how effective the technology is in enabling learners to master a particular
subject, what students learn becomes an important criterion for evaluation. But how and when to assess learning and
comprehension is an important and continuing problem. This article deals with strategic evaluation, which emphasizes
technical accuracy, pedagogical soundness, substantive fidelity, integrative flexibility, and cyclic improvement.
Effective strategic evaluation is a continuing process-ranging from querying immediate comprehension, to modifying
instruction, to assessing long-term effects.
KEYWORDS
ICT, evaluation, effectiveness of instruction, accuracy , strategic evaluation
INTRODUCTION
The effectiveness of instruction depends on an
appropriate evaluation of that instruction. Evaluation
has several components, perhaps the most important
of which is the evaluation of outcomes. As a result,
what students learn becomes an important criterion
for evaluation. But how and when to assess learning
and comprehension is an important and continuing
problem. Do we evaluate just at the time at which the
Research Article
THE ROLE OF INFORMATION COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE
PROCESS OF EVALUATING STUDENTS
Submission Date:
February 01, 2023,
Accepted Date:
February 05, 2023,
Published Date:
February 10, 2023
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ijp/Volume03Issue02-01
Saytiyev Olimjon
Tashkent University Of Applied Sciences, Uzbekistan
Ergashev Shokhrukh
Tashkent University Of Applied Sciences, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ijp
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 03 Issue 02-2023
2
International Journal of Pedagogics
(ISSN
–
2771-2281)
VOLUME
03
I
SSUE
02
Pages:
01-05
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
676
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
student learns an important concept-say, at the end of
a class; or at the end of the course-say, in a final exam;
or by considering a portfolio of products that the
student develops over a period of years? Clearly, the
effective evaluation of instruction is a continuing
process, which ranges from queries about immediate
comprehension to the assessment of long-term
effects. In this paper, I will sometimes appear to refer
to instructional software and information technology
interchangeably. This is not because I consider the two
to be equivalent, but because the evaluation of
instructional software has a long history, and it is
sometimes simpler to refer to it. However, the use of
instructional software is only a small part of the rapidly
growing genre of information technologies used in
instruction. While instructional software is one type of
information technology that can be used in teaching
and learning, information technology embraces a wide
range of media, including software, CD-ROM,
interactive video, and sound. As I survey the new
information technologies that are available to
educators, I am convinced that effective evaluation is
essential, and some of the lessons that we have
learned about the effective use of instructional
software also apply to all aspects of information
technology in education.
It is especially heartening to hear the discussion of
evaluation presented in this session. Duncan (1993),
Ransdell (1993), and Welsh (1993) have described not
only the importance of evaluation, but the critical need
for it to be done effectively. I think that we all share the
vision that information technology has the power to
transform teaching and learning, but that it cannot do
so without evaluation. From different academic
environments and from rather different experiences,
each has identified an important role for evaluation. In
this presentation, I will take a different, yet
complementary, view of evaluation. The evaluation of
instructional software or the use of information
technology-to judge from my discussions with faculty
genuinely concerned about the quality of instruction-is
all too often not done, done poorly, or done at the
wrong time. This observation has led me to develop a
series of questions and issues that should encourage
more and better evaluation. These views have grown
out of several years of evaluating technology for my
own instructional use and learning of others' use of
technology. Some views have been influenced by my
experience as a judge for the EDUCOM software
awards program-an experience that not only exposed
me to a large variety of instructional applications and
documentation of their evaluation, but gave me the
opportunity to discuss and debate some of these ideas
with others more insightful and experienced than I on
matters dealing with the instructional application of
technology and its evaluation. Although I have
discussed the effective use of instructional technology
and its evaluation before (e.g., Castellan, 1986, 1987a,
1988), I find that those earlier views must be refined
and expanded in light of new developments and
experience.
STRATEGIC EVALUATION
In the evaluation of any technology for use in
instruction, several questions can (and should) be
asked. Some have argued that these criteria do not
matter, and that the sole criterion for success is
whether "it works." I would argue that the
determination of whether the technology works is in
fact evaluation against a criterion that, although it may
not be well articulated, nonetheless can be judged. My
goal is to provide a set of criteria that can be used in
evaluating instructional software and educational
technology in general. These criteria address different
aspects of the technology and its use: technical
accuracy, pedagogical soundness, substantive fidelity,
Volume 03 Issue 02-2023
3
International Journal of Pedagogics
(ISSN
–
2771-2281)
VOLUME
03
I
SSUE
02
Pages:
01-05
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
676
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
integrative flexibility, and cyclic improvement. As
noted earlier, strategic evaluation is an attitude that
influences the way in which we look at instructional
technologies. Depending on the context, some criteria
may be more important than others, but none should
be ignored.
Technical Accuracy . Does the software execute
correctly? Will it work on the platforms that students
will use? If the application is used in a departmental
computer cluster or on a small network, this may be
easy to determine. But if the technology is to be used
by students at remote sites, particular hardware
configurations will differ widely and it will become
crucial to ensure that students are not frustrated by an
inability to use the technology. Technical accuracy
seems relatively easy to assess, but often it is difficult
to achieve. Achieving it requires both time and
expertise with the different platforms that students
are likely to encounter. It is also a form of evaluation
discussed in depth in manuals dealing with the
development of instructional technology.
Many important aspects of pedagogy could be
considered. The following questions that should be
asked about instructional technology have been
phrased to encourage instructors to delve deeply into
their motivation for teaching particular topics and
concepts. The questions that constitute the following
list are not independent. Rather, they are highly
interrelated, and it would be difficult to identify one as
more important than another. Are instructional goals
articulated clearly for the student? If students are to
develop a useful schema for the knowledge or skills to
be acquired, it is essential that the students know what
the goals are. Although it may be tempting simply to
leave the articulation of goals for the student to
discover, only a small percentage of students are likely
to correctly discern the goals, and, even then, not
necessarily at the appropriate time. Students who
know the goals can monitor their progress toward
those goals and can gain confidence and satisfaction as
they recognize their progress in achieving them. Is it
clear where technology ends and substance begins ?
This is a special problem in many areas of psychology.
For example, if the goal is to teach various structures
in the human brain, then the distinction is probably
clear to the student. However, some of our
applications in psychology are designed to illustrate
concepts that are intimately tied to the use of the
computer.
For
example,
in
an
interactive
demonstration of memory capacity, the research used
to discover such capacity has involved the use of
computers. Thus, the demonstration has special
fidelity because the student performs it by using
essentially the same apparatus that was used in the
original research. But there are differences that the
student must understand. There are limits to memory
capacity, and these limits exist whether or not they are
assessed on a computer. Another subtle point is that,
in the demonstration, the student must take some
action to set up and initiate the experiment and must
do something at its conclusion in order to get a
summary of the data. Is it clear to the student precisely
what parts of the demonstration session constitute the
replication of what subjects saw and did in the original
classic experiment? Does the student effectively
disentangle the various aspects of the demonstration?
(When I first began to use computer-based
demonstrations in a cognitive psychology course, one
demonstration required subjects in a perceptual task
to report the contents of a briefly presented display.
Student subjects were assigned to different
conditions, and, for different subjects, the display was
active for different lengths of time. One day a very
upset student came to my office, saying that she had
run the experiment four times, but was still "failing"
the experiment since she was making only 30% correct
Volume 03 Issue 02-2023
4
International Journal of Pedagogics
(ISSN
–
2771-2281)
VOLUME
03
I
SSUE
02
Pages:
01-05
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
676
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
responses. She had assumed that she would be graded
on her performance, thereby missing the point of the
demonstration.
Integrative Flexibility. Can the instructional software or
technology be integrated into the course easily? Or, to
put it another way: Can the course syllabus and/or the
technology be modified to enable the resources to be
used effectively? If the answer is no, I would argue that
the technology should not be used. Instructional
software-even if it consists only of a single package-
must be assimilated within the course. To be effective,
the technology must not be seen as optional or as an
aid for those who want "extra credit." The technology
must be viewed by the students as an integral part of
the course, and if they are to use it outside of the
classroom, appropriate references must be made to it
in lectures or class discussion. Terminology used in the
software, lectures, technology, and text must be
consistent. Finally, instructors must understand that
adding instructional technology to the syllabus adds to
the time that students must spend in the course. What
can be eliminated? As we add tasks to the syllabus, we
should delete other tasks that may have become less
relevant to the course goals.
Cyclic Improvement. Evaluations of instructional
technology made before its use affect one course for
one semester. But evaluations must be made during
and after the course as well. The nature of the
exercises and the instructional technology must be
altered and modified as a result of experience in their
use. If the technology appears to be less effective than
desired, one must determine whether the problem lies
in the technology, in the manner in which students use
it, or in the manner in which it is integrated into the
course.
CONCLUSION
The goal of instructional technology is to increase the
effectiveness of learning. This may involve engaging
students' attention, teaching difficult concepts, or
improving the efficiency of learning. Instructional
technology is not neutral in this regard, but neither is it
an end in itself. Several issues involving the effective
use of information technology in instruction have been
addressed. These issues can be organized into five
types of strategic evaluation: technical accuracy,
pedagogical
soundness,
substantive
fidelity,
integrative flexibility, and cyclic improvement. Within
these categories of evaluation, issues have been
phrased in terms of questions that the instructor or
person responsible for the course should ask. There is
no clear correct answer to these questions; rather,
strategic evaluation is the search for answers to the
questions in an instructional or learning context. Thus
viewed, the successful integration of technology into
one's courses is a continuing dynamic process of
renewal and growth.
REFERENCES
1.
ALESSI, S. M., ok TROLUP, S. R. (1985).
Computer-based instruction: Methods and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall. BARON, J. B., ok
2.
STERNBERG, R. J. (1987). Teaching thinking
skills: Theory and practice. New York: W. H.
Freeman.
3.
CARROLL, J. M. (Ed.) (1991). Designing
interaction: Psychology and the humDn-
compuzer interface. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
4.
CASTELLAN, N. J., JR. (1984). A model for
courseware development in psychology.
Behavior Research Methods. Instruments. &:
Computers, 16, 165-167.
Volume 03 Issue 02-2023
5
International Journal of Pedagogics
(ISSN
–
2771-2281)
VOLUME
03
I
SSUE
02
Pages:
01-05
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
676
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
5.
CASTELLAN, N. J., JR. (1986). Issuesin the
effective use of computers in introductory
andadvanced courses in psychology. Behovior
Research
Methods.
Instruments.
&:
Computers, 18, 251-25610NASSEN, D. H. (Ed.).
(1988).
Instructional
designs
for
microcomputer software. Hillsdale, N1:
6.
Ebaum. LOCKARD, 1. (1992). Instructional
software: Practical design and development.
Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown
7.
. MAYER, R. E. (1987). Educational psychology:
A cognitive approach. Boston: Little, Brown.
8.
RANSDELL, S. (1993). Educational software
evaluation
research:
Balancing
internal,
external, and ecological validity. Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,
25, 228-232.
9.
STEINBERG, E. (1991). Teaching computers to
teach (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N1: Erlbaum.
10.
TENNYSON, R. D. (1993). MAIS: A computer-
based
integrated
instructional
system.
Behavior Research Methods. Instruments. &
Computers, 25, 93-100. WELSH, 1. A. (1993). The
effectiveness of computerized instruction at
the college level: Five suggestions for
successful implementation. Behavior Research
Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 25, 220-
222.
