Search

Purpose: With the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, online assessment has become the dominant mode of examination in higher education institutions. However, there are contradictory findings on how students perceive online assessment and its impact on their academic performance. Thus, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the potential impact of online assessment on students' academic performance. Design/methodology/approach: This study proposes a research model based on the task–technology fit theory and empirically validates the model using a survey from students in the UK. In addition, the study conducted four experiments based on paper-based and online assessments and analysed the data using paired sample t test and structural equation modelling. Findings: The findings show that the use of online assessment has a positive impact on students' academic performance. Similarly, the results from the experiment also indicate that students perform better using online assessments than paper-based assessments. Practical implications: The findings provide crucial evidence needed to shape policy towards institutionalising online assessment. In addition, the findings provide assurance to students, academics, administrators and policymakers that carefully designed online assessments can improve students' academic performance. Moreover, the study also provides important insights for curriculum redesign towards transitioning to online assessment in higher education institutions. Originality/value: This study advances research by offering a more nuanced understanding of online assessment on students' academic performance since the majority of previous studies have offered contradictory findings. In addition, the study moves beyond existing research by complementing assessment results with the views of students in evaluating the impact of online assessment on their academic performance. Second, the study develops and validates a research model that explains how the fits between technology and assessment tasks influence students' academic performance. Lastly, the study provides evidence to support the wide use of online assessment in higher education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This paper aims to make the case for early action approaches with migrant families, introducing a set of principles for practice, mapped against the Professional Capabilities Framework for social work and the Social Work England professional standards. Design/methodology/approach: The paper first explores the context of social work with migrant families, outlining the challenges and gaps in our conceptual understanding of this work. The paper then introduces a conceptual model of work with migrant families which draws on the literature from social work and allied professions, and informed by social work values and ethics. Findings: Current social work practice with migrant children has been criticised as defensive, procedural and lacking a coherent conceptual basis, particularly for those who are subject to the no recourse to public funds (NRPF) rule. This field of social work practice would benefit from an evidence-informed model of practice, anchored in human rights approaches and focused on early action. Eight principles, drawn from existing good practice in other social work and social care contexts, are outlined as the basis for a new model of practice in social work with migrant families. Originality/value: The NRPF rule is a provision in the immigration rules that prevents people who are subject to immigration control from claiming most social security benefits in the UK. In recent years, there has been an increased interest in research about the NRPF rule and its negative impact on children. However, there is currently no evaluated model of social work practice for children and families with NRPF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to report on how early years practitioners worked with the ORIM Framework to support work with parents to promote early literacy experiences. Design/methodology/approach – Co-produced Knowledge Exchange (KE) was used to develop and evaluate work with parents to facilitate their young children’s literacy. Information was gathered in discussion groups, interviews with parents and practitioners and feedback from all the parties involved. Findings – Practitioners and families engaged with each other in the further development of an established literacy programme, and families demonstrated “ownership” of the co-produced knowledge after the end of the project. Research limitations/implications – Project design in co-produced research and KE is necessarily flexible. The focus is on practitioners’ knowledge and ownership of the process, sharing knowledge with parents and enhancing children’s experiences. Practical implications – Practices that can enhance parental engagement in their children’s early literacy are varied and multiple and ORIM can be used flexibly to plan, develop and evaluate innovative and community – (and family –) specific practices. Social implications – Where parents have more knowledge of children’s early literacy development they are in a better position to support them; for learning communities there are implications in terms of future development of work with families to support early literacy development. Originality/value – This paper contributes an original approach to the co-production of research with early years practitioners. It also identifies specific issues around the ethics of ownership in co-produced research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute to understanding of different ways that parents and schools develop and maintain working partnerships to improve outcomes for children by focusing on quantitative evidence about parental involvement (PI). The key questions for this synthesis are: what is the evidence about the extent of impact of PI on cognitive or academic outcomes for children, and how consistent and reliable is this evidence? Design/methodology/approach – This is an “umbrella” review comparing and contrasting findings from 13 meta-analyses across three areas of PI and home/school partnerships: first, general approaches; second, home and family literacy programmes; and finally, targeted interventions focused on individual or specific family need. Findings – There is consistent evidence about the extent of impact from general approaches (three to six months average additional gain for children’s educational outcomes) and for targeted intervention (four to six months), but with a wider range of estimates for family literacy (two to eight months average gain). Variation in approaches and evaluation quality make specific recommendations for practice challenging, though some consistent patterns of findings indicate strategies that are likely to be “good bets” to explore and evaluate. Research limitations/implications – The quality of the underlying studies makes drawing secure implications for practice difficult. The nature of the review means that it does not capture the most recent studies. Originality/value – The paper provides a synthesis of quantitative evidence from 13 meta-analyses to identify where there is consistency in estimates of impact and what is associated with systematic variation in this impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the utility of an evidence-based suite of programmes, The Incredible Years (IY), to enhance outcomes for children using a parent-teacher partnership model. Design/methodology/approach – A review of the broad evidence base for the IY parent, teacher and child programmes, uniquely focusing on the inter-relationships between home and school contexts. Findings – Evidence suggests that it is beneficial to parents, teachers and children to deliver IY programmes applying a multi-modal approach. Originality/value – This paper, read in conjunction with other contributions in this volume, demonstrates the growing viability of partnership strategies that support children, their families and teachers to enhance school readiness, and promote positive child outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]