Abstract
The present study aimed to identify the favorite methods of teaching and evaluation among students in university colleges. The study adopted a descriptive survey design; self-administered copies of the questionnaire were used to generate data from 1638 students at university colleges, selected by a random sample method. Frequency and percentage were used to analyze data. The findings showed 12 methods of teaching preferred by students (flipped learning, blended learning, simultaneous e-learning, asynchronous e-learning, virtual learning, scientific trips, training in the workplace, problem-solving, critical thinking, visitor lecture, learning by project and activities, and discussion) and seven methods of evaluation preferred by students (evaluation by multiple-choice test, true and false test, observation, written test, interview (face to face), evaluation of performance, and evaluation of portfolio). The results also showed that the teaching method preferred by students is the flipped learning method, where it received the highest frequency 1575 (96%); the evaluation method preferred by students is evaluation by multiple-choice, where it received the highest frequency 1623 (99%). The teaching method preferred by males and females is the flipped learning method; the evaluation method favored by males is the true and false test, and the multiple-choice test is the preferred evaluation method for females. According to the results, the researchers recommended that the faculty members of university colleges use the teaching and evaluation methods preferred by students.
Keywords: Curriculum and Instruction Methods of Teaching,Methods of Evaluation,University College,Higher education institutions,AL-Balqa Applied University.
Received: 14 April 2020 / Revised: 18 May 2020 / Accepted:22 June 2020/ Published: 6 July 2020
Contribution/ Originality
This study is one of very few studies which have investigated favorite methods of teaching and evaluation among students in university colleges, which constitutes a guide for faculty members in universities to focus on these methods, and makes the student the focus of the educational process, according to modern educational theories .
1. INTRODUCTION
Teaching and evaluation strategies have an important role in achieving learning objectives. The strategy used by the faculty member in communicating a particular concept to students is a critical factor in helping students acquire and build concepts correctly (Harriman, 2004; Krause, 2008). Teaching is a planned attempt to help someone acquire or change some knowledge, skills, attitudes, or ideas. It is therefore the duty of the faculty member to make desired changes in the learner’s behavior (Borko, Stecher, Alonzo, Moncure, & McClam, 2005; Mahasneh, 2020a; Tawarah & Mahasneh, 2020). To achieve this, psychologists have developed a number of teaching strategies, methods, and techniques, so that the faculty member chooses the method that suits different educational events (Hallahan & Kauffman, 2000). In the field of education, especially in schools and universities, attention must always be paid to the methods of teaching and to finding the best solutions for the educational problem; one thing that can be useful in solving educational problems is the search for teaching methods in order to develop and expand the learning scope of the learner (Lenman & Shemmer, 2012; Mahasneh 2020b). Attention must be paid to the activation of professional evaluation methods, balanced and based on careful planning and appropriate skills, leading to the achievement of distinct learning outcomes, and supporting the exchange of roles and responsibilities of learning inside and outside the lecture (Coghill & Sonuga‐Barke, 2012; Mahasneh 2020c).
Higher education institutions in any country are responsible for their own development, for their decisive and effective role in building societies and advancing their educational, research, training, cultural, and social services, especially in the context of information wealth, globalization, knowledge economy, communications, and artificial intelligence. Continuous development and modernization need to direct various events (scientific, intellectual, industrial, etc.) to build generations able to face modern changes with new thinking beyond the limits of reality and able to foresee the future with its threats and available opportunities, which positively affects the level of the educational process and the quality of learning outcomes (Alawneh, 2016; Dkhikh, Hassanein, & Masri, 2017).
Teaching and evaluation methods are a major factor in the development of various fields of education in general and education in institutions of higher education in particular, through their effective contributions to improving the level of teaching performance, both theoretical and applied. The professional faculty member needs to carry out their work to the fullest and stimulate it to achieve the desired goals, by practicing modern teaching methods that follow the teaching and e-learning environment on scientific bases, and according to data helping to keep pace with this progress and development in the world of education and training. In order to enable university students to keep abreast of the developments of the time, accommodate them, and address rapid changes in order to achieve development and comprehensive quality in various areas of life, universities rely for their progress on the level of development and modernization in their curricula, methods, and teaching methods (Al-Otaibi, 2015).
1.1. Theoretical Background
Teaching and evaluation methods used by higher education institutions and preferred by their students vary from one specialty to another, and from one method to another. A teacher provides students with detailed explanations and answers, sets clear goals to pursue, follows the model, distributes roles, and monitors their implementation. They also focus on learning activities that help the students Based on analysis, performance standards exist, in the light of which students move because they tend to focus on independent work with the supervision and guidance of the teacher; expressive students prefer the teacher who asks questions and gives students the opportunity to answer them. Therefore, it is preferable to know the correct methods of performance, because teachers do not have the time to experiment. In addition to this, expressive students prefer the teacher who makes them self-reliant in decision-making, while friendly students prefers a teacher who gives detailed answers to students’ questions with a tendency towards interaction and positive participation in the classroom; this gives the impression that the student-friendly collaborator has adapted the guidance and can oversee the completion of tasks assigned to students individually (Grasha, 2002; Ismail, 2014; Kassaian & Ayatllahi, 2010; Rosario, 2004) .
1.2. The Importance of Teaching Methods
There are many types of teaching methods, and it is known that there is no method that is always the best. The teaching methods vary according to the goals to be achieved:
1. The best ways found: There are many ways that can be followed in the method of teaching, and when conducting a search for an appropriate teaching method, a teacher can find the best of them according to their availability; this is known as educational possibility, and knowing the possibilities and limitations of educational capacity enables the faculty member to find the best methods to teach students.
2. The excitement of students’ passion: The only link we can associate with the student is their passion and love of learning, because any beginning of knowledge based on the love of learning and others cannot lead to knowledge, unless the researcher or faculty member finds the near ideal method as the best method to gain the passion and minds of learners.
3. Teamwork: All teaching methods are oriented towards group work in the form of small groups, because of its many benefits (increasing confidence in University College, the ability to communicate with others, the ability to share and put forward ideas, and the importance of the success of others related to the self-generated success of the collective spirit). The search for teaching lies in achieving this through collective action.
4.The generation of self-activities: The teacher may be confined to a short time and short educational hours as well, and thus finding the best teaching method may contribute to the generation of self-activities by giving tasks to the learner; this helps the student to have self-reliance and the ability to search for access to information.
5. The ability to integrate the material to the practical and social life: Science and knowledge cannot be used unless applied in practice, e. Scientific research is also based on integrating this principle to the practical and social life, and finding the extent of its impact on the life of the learner, the reason for this, and how to benefit from it.
1.2.1. The Importance of Evaluation Methods
The evaluation of student education is one of the most important pillars of higher education institutions in the educational process, and is most related to development and modernization sought by many educational systems with their various philosophies of students’ levels, growth, skills, attitudes, and different abilities (Afaneh, 2011; AL- Kreimeen, 2017).
Accordingly, the philosophy of higher education institutions is based on the use of modern assessment strategies with scientific and methodological bases, on the reality of what students have learned in a way that ensures the quality of the educational process and its outputs.
so as to reflect the rapid changes of the communications and information technology revolution in terms of the student’s access to learning purposes and outcomes. Therefore, one of the most prominent orientations of higher education institutions is to focus on a set of evaluation strategies, including:
1. Realistic evaluation strategy: Evaluation that reflects the student’s achievements and measures them in real situations, in which they exercise higher-order thinking skills that help them to process, critique, and analyze information in ways that create excellence and creativity (Al-Thawabiya & Al-Saudi, 2016).
2. Strategy based on performance evaluation: A strategy characterized by providing an integrated and direct evaluation through a number of activities such as presentation, demonstration, simulation, and debate. It allows the student to play a positive role in the performance evaluation of the cognitive, emotional, and performance skills possessed, while retaining the student’s right to defend their opinion, evidence, and logical arguments (Al-Mahasneh & Muhaidat, 2009; Almseidein & Mahasneh, 2020).
3. Communicative evaluation strategy: This strategy aims to collect information and ideas that benefit the teacher in the proper planning of scientific subjects, and to determine educational outcomes according to the abilities and levels of students, with their ability to receive encouragement and feedback, which enhances their ability to self-review and reflect on the level of improvement and development of their performance and potential (Bani-Yassin, 2012; Darling, Ancess, & Falk, 1995).
4. Self-assessment strategy: This strategy focuses on developing students’ cognitive, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills, which helps them to identify and support strengths in performance and weaknesses that need to be improved and addressed, and to identify subsequent learning. It is an essential component of self-learning by providing students with real opportunities to develop different higher-order thinking skills and to enhance their ability to take responsibility for their own learning (Al-Mahasneh & Muhaidat, 2009).
5. Pen and paper evaluation strategy: This strategy helps the teacher to measure students’ abilities and skills in specific areas, in terms of mental, emotional, and performance skills included in the educational outputs of the scientific material learned previously. It also highlights the importance of providing students with a knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses in performance, giving the teacher an indication of how well students have learned, and providing parents with feedback about their child’s academic performance (Allam, 2007; Odeh, 2005).
1.3. Research on the Methods of Teaching and Evaluation Favorite among Students in University Colleges
Having studied the theoretical literature and previous studies, the researchers did not find studies on the subject of determining favorite methods of teaching and evaluation among students in university colleges. (Al-Sa'ayda, (2015) conducted a study on university teaching skills of faculty members at AL-Balqa Applied University on the point of view of their students. To achieve the objectives of the study, a questionnaire was prepared consisting of 59 paragraphs distributed across four areas (planning, implementation, evaluation, and communication). The results of the study revealed that the teaching skills of faculty members at AL-Balqa Applied University were medium; there are statistically significant differences in the teaching skills of faculty members in favor of the male gender. The results also showed that there are statistically significant differences in the range of teaching skills in all faculty members according to which faculty they belong to (scientific, humanitarian, applied) and the presence of statistically significant differences in teaching skills. All faculty members are attributed to a different level of education (first year, second year, third year, fourth year), and are favorite third-year students.
Abdallat (2009) conducted a study aimed at developing standards of discrimination for faculty members in Jordan. The researchers developed a questionnaire consisting of four areas of discrimination: quality of teaching methods, scientific field, values and trends, and personal. The study sample consisted of 554 faculty members from Jordanian public and private universities. Results showed that the faculty members agreed that all these areas of excellence were high, except for the criterion of enjoying physical strength in the personal field.
Al-Janabi (2009) conducted a study aimed at evaluating the teaching performance of faculty members at the University of Kufa in Iraq and its implications for the quality of higher education. The researchers reached a number of conclusions: The performance evaluation process of faculty members is useful in knowing the strength of differentiation at the specified level of teaching and reaching the level required to achieve it. It aims to reveal the ability and quality performance of faculty members, and to show that the effectiveness of university teaching cannot be determined without the processes of evaluating the teaching performance of faculty members, which needs tools and standards. The experiences of countries and the results of scientific research can be adopted to achieve a higher quality of education, and the processes of evaluation of the teaching performance of faculty members provide feedback to faculty members to review their level of performance and to see how to improve the means and methods adopted to achieve quality in performance.
A study by Al-Otaibi (2015) was aimed at identifying training needs from the viewpoint of faculty members at the Faculty of Science, Princess Nourah Abdulrahman University, where researchers prepared tools for the study and applied them to 21 faculty members. Results indicated that the most urgent training needs are the design of activities, setting goals, effective implementation of lectures, and effective management of lecture time, and the study recommended an examination of the reality of teaching practices at the Faculty of Science.
A study by Mahasneh, Al-tawarah, and Al-Msadeen (2013) focused on identifying the level of teaching by staff of the Department of Arabic at the University of Northern Borders, the effective teaching methods, and the method of reciprocal teaching; results showed that the degree of their practice was high.
The present study differs from previous studies in that it is the only one aimed at the favorite methods of teaching and evaluation among students in university colleges.
1.4. Study questions
The study tried to answer the following questions :
First question: What is the favorite method of teaching among students?
Second question: Is there a difference in the teaching methods preferred by students according to gender?
Third question: What is the favorite method of evaluation among students?
Fourth question: Is there a difference in the evaluation methods preferred by students according to gender?
2. METHODS
2.1. Research Design
The study adopted the descriptive survey design. This was chosen because the researchers collected data from a number of respondents to determine the favorite methods of teaching and evaluation among students at university colleges in Jordan.
2.2. Study Populations
The target population refers to the entire group of people that the researchers wish to investigate. The research targeted 14, 246 students from the six selected university colleges in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, as shown in Table 1.
Table-1. Population of the survey.
S/N |
University College | Type | No. of Students |
1. |
College of Shoubak University | Government College | 250 |
2. |
College of Irbed University | Government College | 5,000 |
3. |
College of Ajloun University | Government College | 3,500 |
4. |
College of Alsalt University | Government College | 1,236 |
5. |
College of Maan University | Government College | 760 |
6. |
College of AL-huson University | Government College | 3500 |
| Total | 14,246 |
2.3. Study Sample
The random sampling technique was used to carefully observe the population and ensure that everyone was well represented. The sample of the study consisted of 1,638 students from different university colleges, as shown in Table 2.
Table-2. Sample size of each university college.
S/N |
University College | Total population |
Sample Size |
1. |
College of Shoubak University | N=250 |
n=29 |
2. |
College of Irbed University | N=5,000 |
n=575 |
3. |
College of Ajloun University | N=3,500 |
n=402 |
4. |
College of Alsalt University | N=1,236 |
n=143 |
5. |
College of Maan University | N=750 |
n=87 |
6. |
College of AL-huson University | N=3,500 |
n=402 |
| Total | 14,246 |
1,638 |
2.4. Demographical Characteristics of the Respondents
The data presented below was obtained using a structured questionnaire. The distribution of the demographical characteristics of the respondents is presented in the bar chart in Figure 1. The respondents involved in the survey were 781 males (47.70%) and 857 females (52.30%), selected by a random sample method.
Figure-1. Gender distribution.
2.5. Measures
In this study, we measured the favorite methods of teaching and evaluation among students in higher education institutions. They were measured through the statements as shown in Table 7 in the Appendix.
2.6. Instruments
After reviewing the theoretical literature and previous studies on the subject of the study and obtaining assurances from the study population, the questionnaire tool was constructed and the psychometric properties of the instrument were finally verified, consisting of 12 teaching methods and seven evaluation methods, as shown in Table 7 in the Appendix.
2.7. Instrument Validity
The questionnaire was checked by experts for language, clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness of the content. The items were rated as follows: 4 – Very relevant, 3 – Quite relevant, 2 – Somewhat relevant, and 1 – Not relevant. The researchers then put the items into two groups, with categories 1 and 2 in one group, and 3 and 4 in the other group. The researchers then calculated the Content Validity Index (CVI) using the formula below:
CVI = Items rated as very relevant and relevant (3 and 4)/ Total number of items.
For the instrument to be valid, the CVI had to be within the accepted statistical range of 0.7 to 1. The computed CVI for the first instrument was found to be 0.90, and for the second instrument, the computed CVI was found to be 0.89.
2.8. Instrument Reliability
In order to establish the reliability of the instruments, the researchers conducted a test study using ten people who were not part of the study sample. Using the results of the study, the reliability of the instruments was computed using Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient to prove the reliability of the instruments, with the coefficients within the accepted statistical range of 0.7 to 1. The study had a coefficient of 0.98.
2.9. Data Analyses
Using SPSS version 16.0, the researchers used tables (frequencies and percentages) to analyze the demographic characteristics of the populations and to determine students’ preferred teaching and evaluation methods.
3. RESULT
3.1. First question
What is the favorite method of teaching among students? To answer this question, frequencies and percentages were calculated as shown in Table 3.
Table-3. Frequency and percentage of students’ favorite teaching methods.
N |
Method of teaching | Frequency |
Percentage |
n |
% |
||
1. |
Flipped learning | 1,575 |
96.2 |
2. |
Blended learning | 1,521 |
92.9 |
3. |
Simultaneous e-learning | 1,484 |
90.6 |
4. |
Asynchronous e-learning | 1,482 |
90.2 |
5. |
Virtual learning | 1,476 |
90.1 |
6. |
Scientific trips | 1,472 |
89.9 |
7. |
Training in the workplace | 1,458 |
89.0 |
8. |
Problem-solving | 1,449 |
88.5 |
9. |
Critical thinking | 1,386 |
84.6 |
10. |
Visitor lecture | 1,166 |
71.2 |
11. |
Learning by project and activities | 1,165 |
71.1 |
12. |
Discussion | 1,071 |
65.4 |
| Total sample | 1,638 |
Table 3 shows 12 teaching methods preferred by students, as illustrated in the following graph.
Figure-2. Percentage of students’ favorite for teaching methods.
As shown in Table 3 and Figure 2, the favorite method of teaching among students is flipped learning, which has the highest percentage (96.2%), and the second is blended learning (92.9%), followed by the teaching methods respectively (simultaneous e-learning, asynchronous e-learning, virtual learning, scientific trips, training in the workplace, problem-solving, critical thinking, visitor lecture, and learning by project and activities). The discussion method has the lowest percentage (28%) as the least preferred style among students. The researchers justified these results, as the methods of teaching which obtained the highest percentage of modern methods are consistent with structural philosophy, confirming the theoretical literature and previous studies on importance to the student and its role in making the learner the focus of the educational process. This finding agrees with Lenman and Shemmer (2012); Mahasneh, Al-Tawarah, and Al-Hawartheh (2017); Mahasneh. et al. (2013).
3.2. Second question
Is there a difference in the teaching methods preferred by students according to gender? To answer this question, frequencies and percentages are shown in Table 4.
Table-4. Frequencies and percentages of preferred teaching methods for males and females.
N/R |
Method of teaching | Total frequency |
Percentage |
Male frequency |
R |
Female frequency |
R |
n |
% |
n/% |
%n/ |
||||
1. |
Flipped learning | 1575 |
96.2 |
816(49%) |
1 |
759(47%) |
1 |
2. |
Blended learning | 1521 |
92.9 |
793(48%) |
3 |
728(44%) |
2 |
3. |
Simultaneous e-learning | 1484 |
90.6 |
779(47%) |
4 |
705(43%) |
7 |
4. |
Asynchronous e-learning | 1482 |
90.2 |
807(48%) |
2 |
675(42%) |
9 |
5. |
Virtual learning | 1476 |
90.1 |
772(47%) |
5 |
704(43%) |
8 |
6. |
Scientific trips | 1472 |
89.9 |
758(46%) |
6 |
714(44%) |
4 |
7. |
Training in the workplace | 1458 |
89.0 |
744(45%) |
7 |
714(44%) |
5 |
8. |
Problem-solving | 1449 |
88.5 |
737(44%) |
8 |
712(43%) |
6 |
9. |
Critical thinking | 1386 |
84.6 |
671(41%) |
9 |
715(44%) |
3 |
10. |
Visitor lecture | 1166 |
71.2 |
575(35%) |
11 |
591(36%) |
10 |
11. |
Learning by project and activities | 1165 |
71.1 |
581(35%) |
10 |
584(36%) |
11 |
12. |
Discussion | 1071 |
65.4 |
506(31%) |
12 |
565(34%) |
12 |
| Total sample | 1638 | ||||||
According to Table 4, Figure 3 shows the preferred teaching methods forMale
Figure-3 . Frequencies and percentages of male preferred teaching methods.
As shown in Table 4 and Figure 3, the favorite method of teaching for males is the flipped learning method, with the highest frequency (816); and the second is asynchronous e-learning (807), followed by the teaching methods respectively (blended learning, simultaneous e-learning, virtual learning, scientific trips, training in the workplace, problem-solving, critical thinking, visitor lecture, and learning by project and activities). The discussion method has the lowest frequency (506), and is the least preferred style among students. The researchers justified these results as the methods of teaching which obtained the highest frequencies of modern methods that males prefer to deal with are those engaging modern technology. Also, the researchers explained the discussion method as being the least preferred, since it is a traditional method consistent with the principles of behavioral philosophy. This finding agrees with Ornstein and Hunkins (2008); Richards and Rodgers (1989) and Walters (2008).
Figure 4 shows the Preferred teaching methods for females.
Figure-4. Frequencies of female preferred teaching methods.
As shown in Table 4 and Figure 4, the favorite method of teaching for females is the flipped learning method, which has the highest frequency (759); the second is blended learning (728), followed by the teaching methods respectively (critical thinking, scientific trips, training in the workplace, problem-solving, simultaneous e-learning, virtual learning, asynchronous e-learning, visitor lecture, and learning by project and activities). The discussion method has the lowest frequency (565), and is the least preferred style among students. The researchers justified the results, as the method of teaching which obtained the highest frequency is related to he physiological nature of females, from their liking For their interest in criticism s well as their interest in everything new. Also, the researchers explained that the discussion method is the least preferred since it is a traditional method consistent with the principles of behavioral philosophy. This finding agrees with Adams, Finn, Moes, Flannery, and Rizzo (2009); Bohil, Alicea, and Biocca (2011); Boran (2010).
3.3. Third question
What is the favorite method of evaluation among students? To answer this question, frequencies and percentages were calculated as shown in Table 5.
Table-5. Frequency and percentage of students’ favorite evaluation methods.
N |
Method of evaluation | Frequency |
Percentage |
n |
% |
||
1. |
Evaluation by multiple-choice test | 1,623 |
99.1 |
2. |
Evaluation by true and false test | 1,557 |
95.1 |
3. |
Evaluation of performance | 1,521 |
92.9 |
4. |
Evaluation by observation | 1,512 |
92.3 |
5. |
Evaluation by written tests | 1,501 |
91.2 |
6. |
Evaluation by interview (face to face) | 1,160 |
70.8 |
7. |
Evaluation of portfolio | 1,140 |
69.1 |
Table 5 shows seven evaluation methods preferred by students, as illustrated in the following graph.
Figure-5 . Percentages of students’ preferred evaluation methods.
As shown in Table 5 and Figure 5, the favorite method of evaluation among students is evaluation by multiple-choice test, which has the highest percentage (99.1%); and the second is evaluation by true and false test (95.1%). The portfolio evaluation method has the lowest percentage (69.1%), and this method is the least preferred style among students. This is followed by the evaluation methods respectively (evaluation of performance, evaluation by observation, written tests, and interview (face to face)). The researchers justified the results of the preferred methods of evaluation, since students prefer easier assessment methods that help them to increase their academic achievement, especially when the answers are beside the question, as many students cannot memorize courses, so they prefer multiple choice, and true and false assessment methods, The researchers also explained that portfolio evaluation has the lowest frequency in the preferences; students do not care for this method because it relates to aspects of personality. This finding agrees with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (2012).
3.4. Fourth question
Is there a difference in the evaluation methods preferred by students according to gender? To answer this question, frequencies and percentages were calculated as shown in Table 6.
Table-6. Frequencies and percentages of preferred evaluation methods for males and females.
N/R |
Method of evaluation | Total frequency |
Percentage |
Female frequency |
R |
Male frequency |
R |
n |
% |
n/% |
%n/ |
||||
1. |
Evaluation by multiple-choice | 1,623 |
99.1 |
856(52%) |
1 |
767(47%) |
2 |
2. |
Evaluation by true and false | 1,557 |
95.1 |
582(36%) |
4 |
736(50%) |
1 |
3. |
Evaluation of Performance | 1,521 |
92.9 |
800(49%) |
3 |
721(44%) |
3 |
4. |
Evaluation by observation | 1,512 |
92.3 |
814(50%) |
2 |
698(43%) |
4 |
5. |
Evaluation by written tests | 1,501 |
91.2 |
526(32%) |
6 |
633(39%) |
5 |
6. |
Evaluation by interview (face to face) | 1,159 |
70.8 |
526(32%) |
7 |
633(39%) |
6 |
7. |
Evaluation of portfolio | 1,145 |
69.1 |
540(33%) |
5 |
605(37%) |
7 |
| Total sample | 1,638 |
||||||
According to Table 6 and Figure 6 shows the preferred evaluation methods for males.
Figure-6. Frequencies of the preferred methods of evaluation among males.
As shown in Table 6 and Figure 6, the favorite method of evaluation for male students is evaluation by true and false test, which has the highest frequency (736); the second is evaluation by multiple-choice (767). These are followed by the evaluation methods respectively (evaluation of performance, evaluation by observation, written tests, and interview (face to face)). The portfolio evaluation method has the lowest frequency (605), and is the least preferred style among males. The researchers justified the results, as the method of evaluation which obtained the highest percentage from males favors the easiest things, because their concentration in studying is less than that of females. In addition, researchers explained that the portfolio evaluation method has the lowest preference, because male students do not care about this compared to females. This finding agrees with Mahasneh and Murad (2014).
According to Table 6, Figure 7 shows the preferred evaluation methods for females.
Figure-7. Frequencies of the preferred methods of evaluation among females.
As shown in Table 6 and Figure 7, the favorite method of evaluation for female students is evaluation by multiple-choice test, which has the highest frequency (856), and the second is evaluation by observation (814). These are followed by the evaluation methods respectively (evaluation of performance, evaluation by true and false, evaluation of portfolio, and written tests). The method of evaluation by interview (face to face) has the lowest frequency (526) and is the least preferred style among females. The researchers justified the results, as the methods of evaluation which obtained the highest percentage are because of the physiological composition of females to focus on For their interest in criticism and this requires higher thinking skills, In addition, the researchers justified the interview method obtaining the lowest preference, because of the composition of females being characterized by shyness and fear, which affects academic achievement. This finding agrees with Allan, Glatthorn, and Bonni (2015).
Table-7. Instrument of methods of teaching and evaluation.
N |
Method of teaching | Clarification | Check | |
1. |
Flipped learning | “is a pedagogical approach in which the conventional notion of classroom-based learning is inverted, so that students are introduced to the learning material before class, with classroom time then being used to deepen understanding through discussion with peers and problem-solving activities facilitated by teachers” | ||
2. |
Blended learning | “is an approach to education that combines online educational materials and opportunities for interaction online with traditional place-based classroom methods” | ||
3. |
Simultaneous e-learning | Etc…… |
Funding: This study received no specific financial support. |
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. |
Acknowledgement: Special appreciation goes to the students in University College, Al-Balqa Applied University, Jordan, for their participation in the study. |
REFERENCES
Abdallat, F. (2009). Developing proposed standards of excellence for the faculty member in Jordan. Unpublished doctoral Thesis, University of Jordan. Jordan.
Adams, R., Finn, P., Moes, E., Flannery, K., & Rizzo, A. (2009). Distractibility in attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): The virtual reality classroom. Child Neuropsychology, 15(2), 120–135.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09297040802169077 .
Afaneh, M. (2011). The reality of the use of Arabic language teachers of assessment methods in the preparatory stage in UNRWA schools in the Gaza Strip in the light of recent trends. Master Thesis published, Faculty of Education, Islamic University, Gaza.
AL- Kreimeen, R. (2017). Effective teaching strategies between teaching competencies and learning theories. Amman: Academic for Publishing and Distribution.
Al-Janabi, A. (2009). Evaluation of the teaching performance of the faculty members and its implications on the quality of higher education. Paper presented at the Quality Conference in Kufa.
Al-Mahasneh, I., & Muhaidat, A. H. (2009). Classroom measurement and evaluation. Amman: Jarir Publishing & Distribution.
Al-Otaibi, S. (2015). The training needs of faculty members in the light of effective teaching skills at the faculty of science, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University. International Journal of Educational Specialization, 6(49), 140-160.
Al-Otaibi, S. (2015). Training needs for teaching staff members, effective teaching skills, faculty of Sscience, Princess Noura University. International Educational Journal, 12(6), 170-186.
Al-Sa'ayda, M. (2015). University teaching skills that should be disguised among faculty members at the Balqa Applied University from the perspective of their students. Unpublished Magister Thesis, Middle East University.
Al-Thawabiya, A., & Al-Saudi, K. (2016). Obstacles to the application of realistic evaluation strategies and tools from the perspective of Islamic Education teachers in Tafilah Governorate, Studies. Educational Sciences, 43(1), 265-280.
Alawneh, M. (2016). Evaluating the academic performance of faculty members at Istiqlal University. International Specialized Journal, 5(3), 241-260.
Allam, S. (2007). Measurement and educational evaluation in the teaching process. Amman: Al-Masirah Publishing & Distribution.
Allan, A., Glatthorn, F. B., & Bonni, F. B. (2015). Curriculum leadership: Strategies for development and implementation (4th ed.). Greenville, North Carolina: SAGE Publications, East Carolina University.
Almseidein, T., & Mahasneh, O. (2020). Awareness of ethical issues when using an e-learning system. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 11(1), 128-131.
Bani-Yassin, O. (2012). Modern educational evaluation strategies. Palestine University Journal for Research and Studies, 3, 514-535.
Bill, & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2012). Gathering feedback for effective teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Seattle, WA: Author.
Bohil, C. J., Alicea, B., & Biocca, F. A. (2011). Virtual reality in neuroscience research and therapy. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(12), 752-762.
Boran, G. (2010). Methods and approaches in language teaching in brief. Retrieved from http://w3.gazi.edu.tr/~gboran/Boran%20Yeni%20WebEnglish/eltmethods.htm . [Accessed 16/9/2010].
Borko, H., Stecher, B. M., Alonzo, A. C., Moncure, S., & McClam, S. (2005). Artifact packages for characterizing classroom practice: A pilot study. Educational Assessment, 10(2), 73-104.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1002_1 .
Coghill, D., & Sonuga‐Barke, E. J. (2012). Annual research review: categories versus dimensions in the classification and conceptualisation of child and adolescent mental disorders–implications of recent empirical study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(5), 469-489.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02511.x .
Darling, H., Ancess, J., & Falk, B. (1995). Authentic assessment in action. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dkhikh, S., Hassanein, S., & Masri, T. (2017). Methods of university teaching among faculty members of universities. Journal of Educational Sciences 1(3), 1-78.
Grasha, A. F. (2002). The dynamics of one-on-one teaching. College Teaching, 50(4), 139-146.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550209595895 .
Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. (2000). Exceptional children. Needham Height. MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Harriman, G. (2004). What is blended learning? E-Learning resources. Retrieved from http://www.grayharriman.com/blended_learning.htm . [Acceseed October 13, 2009].
Ismail, I. (2014). Preferred teaching methods and their relationship to learning and social methods among students of the Faculty of Education. Journal of the Faculty of Education, Port Said University, 1(16), 1-36.
Kassaian, Z., & Ayatllahi, M. (2010). Teaching styles and optimal guidance in English Language Major. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 55, 131-152.
Krause, K. (2008). Blended learning strategy: Griffith University. Paper presented at the Inaugural Vice-Chancellor’s Learning and Teaching Colloquium, 31 May, University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Lenman, J., & Shemmer, Y. (2012). Constructivism in practical philosophy (pp. 253). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mahasneh, O. M., Al-Tawarah, H. M., & Al-Hawartheh, N. A. (2017). The effect of practical presentations' strategy on the achievement of the Ninth Graders students of the Pre-Vocational Education subject in shobak Ddistrict schools. International Education Studies, 10(5), 109-114.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n5p109 .
Mahasneh, O. (2020a). A proposed model for the university students' e-portfolio. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 7(1), 28-34.
Mahasneh, O., Al-tawarah, H., & Al-Msadeen, T. (2013). The extent of familiarity and employment of faculty members at Shoubak and Maan University colleges to the strategies and methods of teaching and ways to improve their performance. Ain Shams University Journal, 1(2), P250-300.
Mahasneh, O. M., & Murad, O. S. (2014). Suggested model (Related to the Student Portfolio) used in evaluation the students in University Courses. Higher Education Studies, 4(3), 72-81.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v4n3p72 .
Mahasneh, O. (2020b). The effect of teaching by (mobile learning) in university students's achievement. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 16th International Conference Mobile Learning 2020, Bulgaria, IADIS.
Mahasneh, O. (2020c). Dataset on perception among male secondary school students on underage smoking in Jordan. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 16th International Conference Mobile Learning 2020, Data in Brief, 29.
Odeh, A. (2005). Measurement and evaluation in the teaching process. Amman: Dar Al Amal for Publishing and Distribution.
Ornstein, A., & Hunkins, F. (2008). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (1989). Approaches and methods in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rosario, K. J. (2004). Quick identification of social style, aptitudes, and motivation on line. Retrieved from http://bonnieblan.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/84485701/NewSocialStylesWeb.pdf . [Accessed March 13, 2020].
Tawarah, H., & Mahasneh, O. (2020). The reality of university education in Jordan from the viewpoint of faculty members. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(8), 7034-7037.
Walters, B. M. (2008). Blended Learning - classroom with on-line. An up-close look at student-centered math teaching. Nellie Mae Education Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.nmefoundation.org/getattachment/Resources/Student-CenteredLearning/An-Up-Close-Look-at-Student-Centered-Math-Teaching/An-UpClose-Look-atStudent-Centered-Math-Teaching-(1).pdf?ext=.pdf .
Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), International Journal of Education and Practice shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. |