Teachers’ Sensemaking of Digital Technologies Integration for Assessment in High School Context

Authors

  • Nurhalimah Siregar Universitas Islam Internasional Indonesia
  • Iin Afriyanti Umar Universitas Islam Internasional Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24036/jtip.v19i2.1124

Keywords:

digital technologies integration, digital assessment, educational technology teacher sensemaking

Abstract

The rapid transformation of digital technologies in education shifts the traditional assessment process into a more flexible and data-driven approach that supports evaluating students’ learning. In the Indonesian context, the teachers primarily use digital technology for administrative purposes and as a substitute for written exams rather than supporting formative assessment strategies and contextual summative assessments. The current study seeks to close a research gap by exploring high school teachers’ sensemaking towards integrating digital assessment into classroom learning. This study is drawn from sensemaking theory by Karl Weick in 1995, which emphasizes the individual making sense process based on their experiences, beliefs, and environments. In this context of study, this theory explains how teachers interpret, negotiate, evaluate, and adapt to the digital assessment integration based on their prior knowledge, beliefs, contextual constraints, and learning objectives. The study used a qualitative research design through semi-structured interviews with four high school teachers from different schools, subject areas, and years of teaching experience. The finding shows that teachers adapt digital assessment based on institutional mandates, learning objectives, and students’ characteristics. Teachers perceive digital assessments as highly effective for enhancing administrative efficiency, professional routine, and student engagement, particularly through creative projects. However, they position digital tools as supplements rather than replacements, as DA is deemed less effective in capturing students' moral character, productive skills (e.g., speaking), and authentic presence. Furthermore, the study reveals that teachers ensure assessment integrity through technological control and foster transparency by providing parents with real-time access to students' progress.

References

M. J. Gomez and J. A. Ruipérez-Valiente, “Analyzing the evolution of digital assessment in education literature using bibliometrics and natural language processing.,” in Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design, J. Keengwe, Ed., IGI Global, 2022, pp. 178–200. doi: 10.4018/978-1-6684-2468-1.ch009.

A. Fink, C. Spoden, and A. Frey, “Determinants of higher education teachers’ intention to use technology-based exams,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 6485–6513, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11435-4.

G. Grosseck, R. A. Bran, and L. G. Țîru, “Digital assessment: A survey of romanian higher education teachers’ practices and needs,” Educ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 1, p. 32, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.3390/educsci14010032.

A. Pereira and I. Oliveira, “A learning design to promote changes in teacher´s digital assessment practices,” Rev. Interuniv. Investig. En Tecnol. Educ., pp. 83–100, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.6018/riite.625971.

S. Timmis, P. Broadfoot, R. Sutherland, and A. Oldfield, “Rethinking assessment in a digital age: Opportunities, challenges and risks,” Br. Educ. Res. J., vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 454–476, Jun. 2016, doi: 10.1002/berj.3215.

S. A. Nikou and A. A. Economides, “Mobile-based assessment: Investigating the factors that influence behavioral intention to use,” Comput. Educ., vol. 109, pp. 56–73, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.005.

J. Wilson, C. Ahrendt, E. A. Fudge, A. Raiche, G. Beard, and C. MacArthur, “Elementary teachers’ perceptions of automated feedback and automated scoring: Transforming the teaching and learning of writing using automated writing evaluation,” Comput. Educ., vol. 168, p. 104208, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104208.

O. Viberg, C. Mutimukwe, S. Hrastinski, T. Cerratto‐Pargman, and J. Lilliesköld, “Exploring teachers’ (future) digital assessment practices in higher education: Instrument and model development,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 2597–2616, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.1111/bjet.13462.

Ł. Tomczyk and L. Fedeli, Eds., Digital literacy for teachers. in Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2022. doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-1738-7.

S. M. Brookhart, “Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers revisited,” Educ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 7, p. 751, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.3390/educsci14070751.

N. Ghanbari and S. Nowroozi, “The practice of online assessment in an EFL context amidst COVID-19 pandemic: Views from teachers,” Lang. Test. Asia, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 27, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1186/s40468-021-00143-4.

F. Ferretti, G. R. P. Santi, A. Del Zozzo, M. Garzetti, and G. Bolondi, “Assessment practices and beliefs: Teachers’ perspectives on assessment during long distance learning,” Educ. Sci., vol. 11, no. 6, p. 264, May 2021, doi: 10.3390/educsci11060264.

C. Zhang, X. Yan, and J. Wang, “EFL teachers’ online assessment practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: Changes and mediating factors,” Asia-Pac. Educ. Res., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 499–507, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s40299-021-00589-3.

F. C. Campos, J. Ahn, D. K. DiGiacomo, H. Nguyen, and M. Hays, “Making sense of sensemaking: Understanding how K–12 teachers and coaches react to visual analytics,” J. Learn. Anal., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 60–80, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.18608/jla.2021.7113.

S. Gherardi, “Digitized and decoupled? Teacher sensemaking around educational technology in a model 1:1 program,” -West. Educ. Res., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 166–194, 2017.

N. Jiang and N. Meng, “Digital mindset and sensemaking in AI integration: A study of open education teachers, competence and trust in AI,” Sage Open, vol. 15, no. 4, p. 21582440251396497, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.1177/21582440251396497.

P. Biccard and N. Sibisi, “Distance education support services: Sensemaking amidst the COVID-19 pandemic,” J. Open Flex. Distance Learn., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 28–40, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.61468/jofdl.v28i1.537.

A. Datnow, A. W. Guerra, S. R. Cohen, B. C. Kennedy, and J. Lee, “Teacher sensemaking in an early education research–practice partnership,” Teach. Coll. Rec. Voice Scholarsh. Educ., vol. 125, no. 2, pp. 66–98, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1177/01614681231161391.

S. Stollman, J. Meirink, M. Westenberg, and J. Van Driel, “Teachers’ learning and sense-making processes in the context of an innovation: A two year follow-up study,” Prof. Dev. Educ., vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 718–733, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.1080/19415257.2020.1744683.

A. Van Leeuwen, M. Van Wermeskerken, G. Erkens, and N. Rummel, “Measuring teacher sense making strategies of learning analytics: A case study,” Learn. Res. Pract., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 42–58, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1080/23735082.2017.1284252.

J. W. Creswell and T. C. Guetterman, Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, 6th ed. Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2019.

J. W. Creswell and C. N. Poth, Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches, 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2018.

P. Leavy, Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. New York London: The Guilford Press, 2017.

J. S. Levy, “Case studies: Types, designs, and logics of inference,” Confl. Manag. Peace Sci., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1–18, Feb. 2008, doi: 10.1080/07388940701860318.

J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Fifth edition. Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington DC Melbourne: SAGE, 2018.

R. K. Yin, Qualitative research from start to finish, 2nd ed. New York, NY: The Guilford Press., 2016.

R. E. Stake, The art of case study research, Nachdr. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publ, 2010.

J. W. Creswell, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 4. ed. Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE, 2014.

V. Braun and V. Clarke, Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington, DC Melbourne: Sage, 2022.

D. Brill, “Digital sensemaking: Sensemaking as a driver of transformation,” 2022.

L. Eyal, “Digital assessment literacy — the core role of the teacher in a digital environment”.

C. N. Blundell, “Teacher use of digital technologies for school-based assessment: A scoping review,” Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 279–300, May 2021, doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2021.1929828.

K. E. Weick, Sensemaking in organizations, Nachdr. in Foundations for organizational science. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publ, 2010.

C. Slade, G. Lawrie, N. Taptamat, E. Browne, K. Sheppard, and K. E. Matthews, “Insights into how academics reframed their assessment during a pandemic: Disciplinary variation and assessment as afterthought,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 588–605, May 2022, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2021.1933379.

R. Mulenga and A. Mwenya, “Examining accessibility, credibility, and accountability in digital assessment: A systematic literature review,” Am. J. Interdiscip. Res. Innov., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 11–20, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.54536/ajiri.v3i3.2908.

D. R. E. Cotton, P. A. Cotton, and J. R. Shipway, “Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT,” Innov. Educ. Teach. Int., vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 228–239, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148.

Downloads

Published

2026-08-26

How to Cite

[1]
N. Siregar and I. A. Umar, “Teachers’ Sensemaking of Digital Technologies Integration for Assessment in High School Context”, J. teknol. inf. pendidik., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1695–1713, Aug. 2026.