University Academics’ Perceptions Regarding the Use of Information Technology Tools for Effective Formative Assessment: Implications for Quality Assessment through Professional Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study sought the perceptions of university academics on the use of IT tools for the formative assessment (FA) of students’ learning outcomes. This study adopted a quantitative research approach and descriptive survey research design using a sample of 180 university academics. Academics’ perception questionnaire was used for data collection. The instrument with two clusters was properly validated, and its internal consistency reliability indies found to be 0.79 and 0.85 for clusters A and B using the Cronbach alpha method. The obtained data were analysed using mean and t-test of independent samples. The results revealed that university academics perceived the use of information technology tools as veritable tools for effective implementation of FA. Further analysis revealed that the perceptions of the academics differed significantly by gender and qualification. IT tools are indispensable in the effective implementation of formative assessment practices in institutions of higher learning. This finding implies that quality assessment can be achieved using IT tools, but there is a need for professional development of the lecturers. It was therefore recommended that efforts should be made by the Nigerian Education stakeholders in making adequate provisions for the effective implementation of quality assessment using IT tools.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".