MODERN ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGIES IN STEM EDUCATION AND THE CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study examines the integration of modern assessment technologies in STEM education within a constructivist framework. Traditional assessment methods often fail to capture students’ higher-order thinking, problem-solving skills, and collaborative abilities. Modern digital tools, such as virtual laboratories, adaptive learning platforms, digital portfolios, and gamified assessments, provide personalized, timely, and interactive feedback that enhances learning outcomes. Constructivist pedagogy emphasizes active knowledge construction, social interaction, and reflective learning, which aligns naturally with these technologies. The research explores theoretical foundations, practical applications, challenges, and future perspectives, highlighting how digital assessment tools can support individualized learning paths, foster collaboration, and promote critical thinking in STEM disciplines. Ethical considerations, accessibility issues, and the balance between automated tools and human guidance are also discussed. The findings suggest that integrating modern assessment technologies with constructivist approaches can significantly improve STEM education quality and student engagement.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.
How to Cite
References
1.Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
2.Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.
3.de Jong, T. (2006). Computer simulations—technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312(5773), 532–533.
4.Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference (pp. 9–15).
5.Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351.
6.Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
7.Рахимова, Н., & Янгибоева, Ж. (2025). ВЛИЯНИЕ ПОСЛОВИЦ И ПОГОВОРОК НА ОБОГАЩЕНИЕ ЛЕКСИЧЕСКОГО ЗАПАСА И РАЗВИТИЕ РЕЧЕВЫХ НАВЫКОВ. Modern Science and Research, 4(1), 416-427.
8.Рахимова, Н. (2024). СЕРГЕЙ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧ ЕСЕНИН–ПЕВЕЦ НАРОДНОЙ ДУШИ. Medicine, pedagogy and technology: theory and practice, 2(10), 191-198.
9.Рахимова, Н. Ш. (2024). ПАТРИОТИЗМ КАК КУЛЬТУРНЫЙ И ИДЕЙНЫЙ ФЕНОМЕН В РУССКОЙ ЛИТЕРАТУРЕ. MEDICINE, PEDAGOGY AND TECHNOLOGY: THEORY AND PRACTICE, 2(12), 95-104.
10.Рахимова, Н. (2025). ВЛИЯНИЕ СОВРЕМЕННОГО РУССКОГО ЯЗЫКА НА ЭФФЕКТИВНОСТЬ КОММУНИКАЦИИ СТУДЕНТОВ. Modern Science and Research, 4(1), 54-66.