Exploring Institutional Factors Influencing Digital Assessment Adoption
Keywords:
Digital assessment, institutional factors, higher education, qualitative research, Pakistan, faculty perceptions, organizational readiness, educational technologyAbstract
This study aims to explore the institutional factors that influence the adoption of digital assessment practices in higher education institutions in Pakistan. A qualitative research design was employed to gain in-depth insights into institutional-level enablers and barriers to digital assessment adoption. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 22 participants, including faculty members, administrators, and educational technologists from various public and private universities across Pakistan. Participants were selected purposively based on their involvement in digital assessment planning or implementation. Interviews continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. All interviews were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis with the support of NVivo software, following an inductive coding process and Braun and Clarke’s six-step framework. Three overarching themes emerged from the data: Organizational Readiness, Pedagogical Perceptions and Practices, and Cultural and Contextual Influences. Within organizational readiness, participants cited infrastructural limitations, low digital literacy, unclear policies, and weak administrative support as key barriers. Pedagogical concerns included doubts about assessment fairness, limited compatibility with teaching philosophies, lack of faculty autonomy, and ineffective training. Cultural and contextual factors, such as hierarchical institutional culture, leadership indifference, and societal skepticism toward online exams, were found to shape attitudes and practices. Disciplinary variation and student engagement challenges further influenced the differential adoption of digital assessment across faculties. The adoption of digital assessment in Pakistani higher education institutions is shaped by a complex interplay of infrastructural, pedagogical, and cultural factors. Successful integration requires not only technological investment but also institutional reform, leadership engagement, and pedagogical alignment. Strategies that are context-sensitive, faculty-driven, and collaboratively implemented hold the greatest potential for sustainable transformation in assessment practices.
Downloads
References
Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., & Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004
Ali, A., Iqbal, S., & Iqbal, M. Z. (2022). Online assessment adoption in higher education: Barriers and enablers from the perspective of faculty. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 3353–3373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10713-0
Aung, T. N., & Khaing, S. S. (2015). Challenges of implementing e-learning in developing countries: A review. In Z. Zhu, & M. Khosrow-Pour (Eds.), Handbook of research on internationalization of information and communication technology education (pp. 1–20). IGI Global.
Bearman, M., Dawson, P., O'Donnell, M., Joughin, G., & Boud, D. (2014). Ensuring academic integrity and assessment security with online learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(2), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.860534
Beetham, H., Jones, S., & Gornall, L. (2009). Thriving in the 21st century: Learning literacies for the digital age. JISC.
Farid, S., Ahmad, R., Alam, M., & Ahmad, H. F. (2015). A sustainable quality assessment model for e-learning. Sustainability, 7(12), 15702–15720. https://doi.org/10.3390/su71215702
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: What is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.770404
McNaught, C., Lam, P., & Cheng, K. (2012). Impact of digital assessment on university teaching: Lessons from Hong Kong. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.864
Nguyen, T., Netto, C. L. M., Wilkins, J. F., Bröker, P., Vargas, E. E., Sealfon, C. D., & Palenque, S. M. (2021). Insights into students’ experiences and perceptions of remote learning methods: From the COVID-19 pandemic to the future. Frontiers in Education, 6, 647986. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.647986
Qureshi, M. I., Khan, N., Ahmad Hassan Gillani, S. M., & Raza, H. (2020). A systematic review of past decade of mobile learning: What we learned and where to go. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 14(6), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i06.13297
Rashid, S., & Yadav, S. S. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on higher education and research. Indian Journal of Human Development, 14(2), 340–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973703020946700
Selwyn, N. (2016). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Spector, J. M. (2014). Conceptualizing the emerging field of smart learning environments. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-014-0002-7
Tsai, Y. S., Whitelock-Wainwright, A., Gao, Y., Zanetti, M., & Kizilcec, R. F. (2020). Open and closed: The predictive value of learner agency and system design for MOOCs. Computers & Education, 146, 103776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103776
Uzun, A. M., & Kilis, S. (2020). Investigating faculty adoption of online education: A content analysis approach. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 206–220. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.690127
Wang, Q., Woo, H. L., & Zhao, J. (2014). Investigating critical success factors in adopting e-learning system. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 115–127.
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
