Impact of IR 4.0 on Assessment at Higher Education Institutes
Tharani Ramasamy* and Lee Yee Ling Taylor’s University, Malaysia
© The Author(s) 2022. This article is published with open access by Taylor’s Press.
Abstract: The Fourth Industrial Revolution (IR 4.0) is characterised by the advancements in automation and utilisation of data exchange technology to improve the productivity of manufacturing sectors. IR 4.0 reshapes almost every aspect of life. In the field of education, IR 4.0 has shifted traditional-based learning towards technology-based learning. This article discusses the impacts of IR 4.0 on the education system, particularly the design and implementation of assessment at higher education institutes. It also sheds light on how educators’ roles and their assessment practices are changed, challenged and improved by technological advancements.
Keywords: Industrial Revolution 4.0, higher education institutes, employability, assessment Suggested citation: Ramasamy, T. & Lee, Y. L. (2022). Impact of IR 4.0 on assessment at higher education institutes. Asia-Pacific Journal of Futures in Education and Society, 1(1), 1–16.
Industrial Revolution 4.0 and the Issue of Skill Gaps
Industrial Revolution (IR) 4.0 which began in 2000 is the cumulative result of the advancements of three past IRs: IR 1.0 (late 18th century) focusing on mechanical production using water and steam power, IR 2.0 (beginning of the 20th century) anchoring on the electrical production line and IR 3.0 (beginning of the 1970s) emphasising on digital automation (Pauceanu et al., 2020). As indicated by the World Economic Forum (WEF) (2020), the rapid expansion of digitisation and robotisation of work taking place in IR 4.0 hugely affects an individual’s future career encounters by changing the fundamentals of employment, standards of living, communication, nature of business and income increments. Technologies such as Big Data, Internet of Services, cloud manufacturing, Internet of Things, robotics, augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) have brought immense changes to job demand (Kazancoglu & Ozkan-Ozen, 2018; Pereira & Romero, 2017).
Furthermore, the transformation from conventional human labour to digitalisation is causing high unemployment (Hirschi, 2018). Through these progressions, one-
*Correspondence: Tharani Ramasamy, Taylor’s University, Malaysia. Email: [email protected]
third of present occupations will be eliminated, and around 85 million positions might be uprooted by the changes taking place in the division of work among employees and machines by 2025 (Whiting, 2020). According to the Cognizant Centre for the Future of Work (2017), 21 million new job scopes are gradually being created, escalating the need for new future skills that will help graduates sustain jobs in the upcoming labour market. This is evident from WEF’s report (2020) that apart from the reskilling requirement for 50% of all current employees, fresh graduates of universities are required to have mastered employability skills by 2030. According to Cassidy (2006) as well as Fajaryati and Akhyar (2020), employability skills are skills that cut vertically across all positions from every level up to the chief executive officer and cut horizontally across all industries. Examples of employability skills include problem-solving, people management, critical thinking, communication and creativity. In other words, employability skills are abilities and talents needed by graduates to adjust well and relevantly in a dynamic workplace alongside performing their job scopes (Munadi et al., 2018; Misra & Khurana, 2017; OECD, 2015).
The recent demonstration of insufficient employability skills by entry-level job applicants has drawn employers’ concerns (Ahmad et al., 2020; Barton et al., 2020;
Lisa et al., 2019). There are inconsistencies between fresh graduates’ employability skills and employers’ expectations (Ahmad & Pesch, 2017; Langer et al., 2016;
Mohan et al., 2018; Singh et al., 2013). According to Global Partnership for Education Report (2020), 80% of job applicants failed to get employment as more than 50% of stakeholders struggle to track down applicants with the right employability skills in line with the opening positions. The report also asserted that employers in this IR 4.0 era are hunting for employees who can solve problems, communicate, think critically and collaborate well in a dynamic work environment. To save the operational costs of conducting workshops and training to upskill job seekers, employers prioritise hiring those that leave their higher education institutes (HEIs) with the right skills (Fajaryati & Akhyar, 2020). Therefore, the issue of unemployment due to gaps in employability skills among graduates of HEIs can be tackled if they undergo professional development courses and training to develop their competency to adjust rapidly to the progression taking place in the realm of work (Brewer, 2013).
Implications of IR 4.0 on Higher Education
HEIs as the anchor establishments for the job market need to change the methods of preparing their graduates into qualified talents in response to the requirements of IR 4.0 (Maria et al., 2018). With regard to this, the term “Education 4.0” emerged.
Aside from integrating technology into teaching pedagogies, Education 4.0 also emphasises the teaching and learning processes to be student-centred to ensure personalised learning (Chea & Tan, 2019; Hussin, 2018). For HEIs to stay relevant and competitive in IR 4.0, higher education providers (HEPs), including their policy
makers and practitioners are expected to move towards settings of current and future strategies and policies according to the preparation of students for future leadership positions in a globalised and knowledgeable society (Ernst & Young, 2017; Wan et al., 2018). HEPs are anticipated to install the employability model into their educational plan to close the gaps between employers’ expectations and graduates’
skills (Fajaryati & Akhyar, 2020; Misra & Khurana, 2017). For example, programs in HEIs should be redesigned to cultivate employability skills in each branch of knowledge with the goal of making skill advancement indivisible from the learning process (Barton et al., 2020).
To develop employability skills, the teaching and learning processes should be designed to promote meaningful learning among university students (Halili et al., 2021). To do so, HEPs need to adopt a more proactive strategy with regard to practical skills being combined into academic programmes and assessments just as prolonged hands-on internships (Wan et al., 2018). This is also alluded to as authentic learning where graduates are physically involved and engaged in acquiring skills in real-life contexts which are then used to cultivate their work readiness to thrive at their desired jobs in the real world later on (Kapareliotis et al., 2019). This technique is powerful since employers can impart their insights towards graduates’
skill advancement in HEIs as indicated by the future necessities of the labour market, in contrast to sending their employees to training post-hiring which is professed to be both ineffective and costly (Aini Abudullah et al., 2020). In line with this, HEPs are encouraged to utilise VR and augmented technology, two of the rising advances in the field of education today that consolidate audio, texts, pictures, recordings and 3-D objects as a vehicle of learning in classrooms and in research laboratories (Dunwill, 2016; Lase, 2019). This backs the improvement of graduates’
learning viability by creating effective competency, technological and organisational innovation alongside graduates’ capacity to dominate a complex and unfamiliar circumstance once they join a working environment (Lawrence et al., 2019). These methods will create a platform for them to practise associating new data with the knowledge they now have and apply it to tackle existing issues ultimately meeting the IR 4.0 needs (Pauceanu et al., 2020).
Implications of IR 4.0 on Educational Assessment
IR 4.0 also influences the design and implementation of educational assessment at HEIs. In terms of the design of assessment, HEPs should move towards the assessment of employability skills and practical knowledge as opposed to conventional testing commonly referred to as assessment of learning (AoL) (de Lisle, 2014; Pauceanu et al., 2020). AoL is conducted towards the end of a learning unit to affirm if students have met the educational plan’s objectives by allocating grades through paper-and-pencil examinations such as tests and year-end examinations (Lian et al., 2014). However,
the assessment of employability skills and practical knowledge requires graduates to apply knowledge and skills as well as to reflect on their learning experience (Kechagias, 2011). This type of authentic, performance-based assessment is challenging but necessary as it eventually enables graduates to stay employed and contribute to the achievement of entities (Kechagias, 2011). In this regard, a move away from AoL to integrate an authentic assessment that measures performance straightforwardly in a “real-life” setting is more appropriate. The authentic assessment can assess graduate performance in a more valid manner as it captivates them in challenges that intentionally address common scenarios driven by digitalisation and robotisation (Kim et al., 2019). Overall, this exposure expands opportunities for graduates to apply their learning to various contexts, advocating high-order reasoning alongside showcasing their problem-solving abilities (Purnomo, 2017).
Nevertheless, not all authentic assessments are “authentic” in nature unless it expects graduates to effectively complete complex tasks using their prior knowledge alongside the application of skills to solve real problems. Therefore, there is and will be high anticipation for the authentic assessment to integrate the notions of assessment for learning (AfL) (Birenbaum et al., 2015). According to OECD (2008), AfL is a continuous assessment approach that is embedded in and supports the day- to-day teaching and learning process. In this process, students take responsibility for their learning by actively participating to form their comprehension of new conceptual knowledge, fostering an assortment of methodologies that empower them to put novel thoughts into bigger settings, and figuring out how to assess the quality of their own and their peers’ output on par with well-explained learning goals and criteria (Black & William, 2009; Briggs, 2017; Darling-Hammond, 2006). As a result, it commissions graduates to advance critical thinking, analytical thinking and metacognitive skills which will eventually become significant for their lifelong learning journey and which Maher and Neild (2005) distinguish as profoundly esteemed traits for expanding graduate employability skills. While AfL is not an elixir that can settle all changes in the education sector, it is still an influential method for meeting the objectives for high performance, the top calibre of education outcomes alongside empowering graduates with knowledge and capabilities for lifelong learning required to solve the issues of skill gap (OECD, 2008).
Since the assessment culture of IR 4.0 is also inseparable from technology- based learning, it is exceptionally significant that teaching and learning processes in which ongoing assessment is integrated coordinate with the most recent information technology development. An example is the consolidation of offline with online teaching and learning processes such as hybrid and blended learning (Wanner &
Palmer, 2015). The usage of smart gadgets and applications such as Google Workspace (previously known as G Suite), WhatsApp, Padlet, Edpuzzle, Kahoot and Quizlet will also influence the adequacy and speed of the accomplishment of learning in
this digital era (Syed Chear, 2017; Shatto & Erwin, 2016). Apart from permitting students to choose their approach in showcasing their comprehension of content knowledge (Falchiko & Thompson, 2008), implementing technology-based learning will empower the integration of collaborative learning among graduates within, across and beyond HEIs which is crucial in the development of employability skills (Daud & Khalid, 2014). Technology integration enables graduates to collaborate with their peers, mentors and experts from various values and cultural settings professionally. Here they will be expected to see the value in the talents and strengths each peer brings to the table to solve the problem in front of them as they would in an authentic working environment in the future (Purnomo, 2017).
Rapid changes to technology during IR 4.0 not only diversify assessment methods but also improve the validity and reliability of assessment. For example, VR- based assessment tools can be used to assess and reinforce student learning outcomes (Sun et al., 2019). VR immerses users in an artificial environment resembling real- world surroundings, enabling them to apply knowledge and skills to solve a task without the need to be in a physical lab (El-Mounayri et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2019).
Thus, utilisation of VR improves the validity of assessment as the tasks are designed to achieve the intended learning outcomes. Plus, artificial intelligence (IR) can replace humans in assessing graduates’ communication skills. In addition to asking questions and recording candidates’ responses, IR is now designed to have dialogues with candidates and mark their responses objectively (Van et al., 2021). Automated marking of exams using cloud computing reduces human errors and subjectivity in marking, and thus, reliability of assessment can be improved (Yeole, 2019).
Roles of Educators in the Assessment Paradigm
In the transition of assessment caused by IR 4.0, educators are anticipated to support the transition of the education system and move away from their typical routines — instructing a classroom full of students followed by testing students for certification purposes — to being facilitators who prioritise AfL. Educators are expected to excel in aligning their practice in assessment with the elements of AfL (Halili et al., 2021;
Lase, 2019). Firstly, educators should involve students actively in their assessment processes (OECD, 2008). To promote AfL, students need to familiarise themselves with the skills required for self- and peer-assessment where they provide feedback to their own or their peer’s work against clear goals and success criteria (Allen et al., 2013). These goals and criteria are the results of active collaboration between students and their instructors where both parties develop a mutual understanding of the students’ present learning status with what they need to do to advance in their learning (Evans et al., 2007). Therefore, by actively engaging students, educators lead students away from being needed to only memorise and regurgitate the subject matter to being involved in constructing their knowledge and abilities based on
their learning abilities when they solve authentic issues in today’s community (Ahmad et al., 2020; Lumadi, 2013). According to Heritage (2007), when educators consistently fulfil this role, students will involve themselves in metacognitive processes that develop self-regulation strategies, eventually enabling themselves to adapt to their learning tactics to meet their learning aims, goals and needs. On top of that, they will also become effective communicators who will be able to explain their learning progression to third parties where necessary to ensure the development of competencies in employability skills carries on as expected (Binkley et al., 2012;
Kim et al., 2019).
Educators are also anticipated to integrate technology in the teaching and learning processes especially with the literacy of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model proposed by Mishra and Koehler (2006).
The TPACK model recommends the ideal mix of pedagogical, technological and content abilities with the end goal for educators to provide the most rounded instructive experience (Santos & Castro, 2021). Hence, it will permit them to move past oversimplified methodologies that treat technology as a simple supplemental instrument but as a coherently embedded academic reality (Saudelli & Ciampa, 2014). Integration of technology is also considered an instrument that has a close interrelationship with enhancing accountability, creativity and collaboration in learning (Ghavifekr & Rosdy, 2015). Educators are expected to be more creative and innovative in integrating technology into their classroom practice. Lessons planned with technology integration are more engaging and interesting, expanding the opportunities for graduates to fabricate their employability skills through the different degrees of tasks that they could do with technology at their own pace (Ghavifekr & Rosdy, 2015; Gunn & Hollingsworth, 2013; Shafie et al., 2019).
It is essential to involve educators and students in the feedback loop so that students can make progressive improvement based on the comments given by the educators (Cauley & McMillan, 2010; Heitink et al., 2016). Feedback is both formative and effective if it is descriptive, clear and contains model-based data that shows the students their current position in a learning progression, how their comprehension contrasts from the ideal learning objectives and how they can move ahead. Educators can utilise technological advancements to make their feedback more helpful and beneficial to their students. For example, automated and personalised feedback through the intelligence of computer-aided assessment is anticipated as it can provide prompt feedback to students, assisting them to take faster corrective actions to improve and enhance their learning (Marriot & Lau, 2008). As a follow-up action to the formative feedback, educators are expected to use the evidence collected from students’ performance to modify their instructions to close the learning gaps identified (Van der Kleij et al., 2015). This will create an expanded opportunity for students to internalise the feedback and apply the next
step to improve their learning. Since the feedback is personalised according to each student’s learning needs, abilities and requirements, it can strongly and positively affect students’ self-esteem and motivation (Black et al., 2003; Hill, McNamara &
Sutton, 2021; Nur et al., 2022).
Challenges faced by Educators in the Assessment Paradigm
Despite the suitability of authentic assessment in developing and nurturing the employability skills that the graduates require to realise their optimal potential in the ever-changing work environment as an effect of IR 4.0, many challenges may hinder the educators in implementing the authentic assessment approach effectively (Hall
& Burke, 2003). The two challenges discussed in this article — educator’s resistance to change and pressure from external factors — are correlated in real-life settings (Deluca et al., 2012).
The first challenge is the teacher’s resistance to change in terms of technological integration in their day-to-day teaching processes in which authentic assessment will be simultaneously incorporated (Lawrence et al., 2019). This challenge can be perceived as an internal factor as the resistance often derives from the educators’
perceptions, beliefs and attitude towards the assessment approach in question.
To date, most educators unequivocally perceive that the conventional method of teaching as the best educating technique (Yan & Cheng, 2015). This is evident when a significant degree of opposition comes from the educators when they are either recommended or expected to incorporate technologies into the teaching processes.
They regard AfL as an extra fragment that needs extra time, resources and effort rather than a consolidated portion in their everyday instruction processes (Dixon
& Haigh, 2009). This leaves them with difficulties to satisfy the current demands of learners especially when their learners comprise of the Z and Alpha generations commonly referred to as digital natives (Abraham & Reginald, 2016). Over time, this may result in educators failing to increase students’ engagement in learning, causing them to be labelled as educators with low-self efficacy in technology integration and are easily dispensable in today’s education world (Ismail et al., 2020). Educators have a negative mindset towards technology integration even though they are expected to nurture competent students for future dynamic jobs which will be dominated or supported by technologies (Abraham & Reginald, 2016; Howard & Mozejko, 2015).
Apart from the internal factor, the misalignment of instruction and assessment needs by external factors greatly affects educators in their design and implementation of assessment. For example, whenever administrators of HEPs, policymakers and/or government bodies emphasise on instruction and assessment methodologies such as AoL mainly to gain satisfactory yearly progress in terms of graduation rate, the educators face hurdles during the analysis and selection process of the best
assessment methodologies according to their student’s needs and learning abilities from the wide range of options available (Fastier & Mohamed, 2015). This discourages educators from implementing AfL effectively and innovatively causing them to wind up instructing the syllabus rather than the students, moving further away from the cultivation of employability skills compatible with IR 4.0 (Ahmad et al., 2020; Lian et al. 2014; Lumadi, 2013; Militello & Berger, 2010). The said need by external factors also showcases the absence of contribution by educators in the decision-making cycles around their daily tasks holding them back from transforming into practitioners who look forward to executing new assessment approaches that uphold students’ positive learning experiences through the preparation to face a fast- paced future (Bennett & Gitomer, 2009).
How Educators can Move Forward in the Assessment Paradigm
The role of educators in general as instructors, mentors and parental figures in the HEIs will not be completely supplanted by technological refinement. Therefore, it is significant for educators to face the changes in the world due to technological advancements positively rather than view them as a threat, by making the effort to learn, adapt and share alongside relevant parties to upgrade themselves to be qualified and competitive with the world (Salmon, 2019).
Educators need to make the effort to join continuous and sustainable professional development programmes which build their capacity to use technological resources.
Such programmes can engage educators in professional growth, empowering them to immerse themselves in the examination of fundamental inquiries regarding being a subject matter expert in this fast-changing world (Wylie et al., 2009). However, educators cannot effectively carry out the new assessment paradigm caused by IR 4.0 overnight (deLuca et al., 2012). Hence, it is vital for educators to root their expert advancement encounters in what they really do in their daily teaching processes for the said assessment practice to be implemented in a way aligned with its purpose.
This is in line with the discoveries of Graven and Lerman (2003) as well as Volante and Fazio (2007) which affirmed that educators foster a collection of actions that are formed by both the standards and by the conceptual knowledge that is gathered through practice.
Leitch and Day (2000) stressed the significance of educators to consolidate reflection into their customary instructing practices. The scholars urged educators to utilise students’ data and observation of lessons to reflect and further develop their assessment practice in which performance-based assessment and AfL are inseparable from successful professional advancements (Washington, 2019). For example, by reflecting on their practices, educators examine incidents, patterns, areas of weakness alongside strengths that may somehow have been disregarded so that they can internalise their reflections as feedback to inform their future practices, including
their comprehension and convictions on AfL (Trumbull & Gerzon, 2013). According to Leitch and Day (2000), this internalisation and adjustment to future instruction is known as action research where educators work on reasoning, directing themselves towards finding out about their practices and the improvements they desire to stay competitive and relevant with the new paradigm they find themselves in.
Additionally, since educators frequently work in solitary, collaborating with peers is hence another element of planning and working on their practices for this new paradigm. Long-term professional development which encourages the development of educators’ learning communities is one of the most successful ones (Gardner et al., 2011). Learning communities create platforms for educators to review, revise and discuss with their colleagues and with international educators through the assistance of the internet on what they can learn from the teaching and assessment evidence collected (Falchikov & Thompson, 2008). Through this sharing, a wider variety of methodologies on AfL can be customised by educators to fit the local culture of students and industries (Andersson & Palm, 2018). This will allow educators to associate and be more open to asking and answering key questions such as why and how students are being assessed (Stiggins & Chappuis, 2016). Consequently, educators will be able to implement various assessment practices which effectively meet students’ diverse needs, abilities and interests in accomplishing the advantageous learning outcomes. As a whole, these efforts of educators will enable them to become a “constructive force” that guides and supports student engagement, motivation and passion in procuring the essential skills and subject matter knowledge for their future employment (Ahmed et al., 2016; Ottewill, 2003).
Conclusion
As educators, the following decade won’t just challenge us to re-evaluate learning for this sort of circulated, dynamic and ultimately creative workforce. It will motivate educators to reimagine the jobs, practices and principles of assessment for the challenging pathways that the upcoming graduates will pioneer in line with IR 4.0. It is essential to develop students into versatile and inventive thinkers who are capable of choosing and using the right skills and knowledge to draw modern solutions for modern problems. For this empowering process to take place effectively, an interrelation between industry revolutions and education sectors must be prioritised (Maria et al., 2018) because “the isolation of the school is the isolation of life’ (Dewey, 1907).
Open Access: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0) which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
References
Abraham, O., & Raginald, A. (2016). E-education: Changing the mindsets of resistant and saboteur teachers. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(16), 122–126.
Ahmad, R., Ahmad, R., Sagir, M. I., & Jaafar, T. J. (2020). Paradigm of shift in assessment:
constructivist and instructional technology model. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(8), 1394–1397.
Ahmad, S., & Pesch, M. (2017). Essential work skills and readiness: Perceptions of employers, MBA Students and undergraduates. The Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 21(1), 1–9.
Aini Abdullah, Q., Humaidi, N., & Shahrom, M. (2020). Industry revolution 4.0: The readiness of graduates of higher education institutions for fulfilling job demands.
Revista Română de Informatică Și Automatică, 30(2), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.33436/
v30i2y202002
Allen, J. P., Hamre, B., Gregory, A., & Pianta, R. (2013). Observations of effective teacher- student interactions in secondary school classrooms: Predicting student achievement with the classroom assessment scoring system-secondary. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 76–98.
Andersson, C., & Palm, T. (2018). Reasons for teachers’ successful development of a formative assessment practice through professional development – a motivation perspective.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 576–597. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/0969594x.2018.1430685
Barton, D., Farrell, D., & Mourshed, M. (2020, December 4). Education to employment:
Designing a system that works. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/
industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/education-to-employment-designing- a-system-that-works
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning:
Putting it into practice. Open University Press.
Bennett, R. E., & Gitomer, D. H. (2009). Transforming K–12 assessment: Integrating accountability testing, formative assessment and professional support. In C. Wyatt- Smith & J. J. Cumming (Eds), Educational assessment in the 21st century (pp. 43–61).
Springer.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M.
(2011). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Springer.
Birenbaum, M., DeLuca, C., Earl, L., Heritage, M., Klenowski, M., & Looney, A. (2015).
International trends in the implementation of assessment for learning: Implications for policy and practice. Policy Futures in Education, 13(1), 117–140. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1478210314566733
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092- 008-9068-5
Brewer, L. (2013). Enhancing youth employability: What? Why? and How? Guide to core work skills. International Labour Organization.
Briggs, R. (2017). The quantified self. Research World, 2017(65), 9–12. https://doi.
org/10.1002/rwm3.20533
Cassidy, S. (2006). Developing employability skills: Peer assessment in higher education.
Education + Training, 48(7), 508–517. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910610705890 Cauley, K. M., & McMillan, J. H. (2010). Formative assessment techniques to support
student motivation and achievement. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903267784 Chea, C. C., & Tan, H. J. (2019). Higher education 4.0: The possibilities and challenges.
Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 5(2), 81–85.
Cognizant Center for the Future of Work. (2017). Meet the center for the future of work.
https://www.cognizant.com/futureofwork/about
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285962 Daud, M. Y., & Khalid, F. (2014). Nurturing the 21st century skills among undergraduate
students through the application and development of weblog. International Education Studies, 7(13), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n13p123
de Lisle, J. (2014). The promise and reality of formative assessment practice in a continuous assessment scheme: the case of Trinidad and Tobago. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 79–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2014.944086 DeLuca, C., Luu, K., Sun, Y., & Klinger, D. A. (2012). Assessment for learning in the
classroom: Barriers to implementation and possibilities for teacher professional learning.
Assessment Matters, 4, 5–29. https://doi.org/10.18296/am.0104 Dewey, J. (1907). The school and society. University of Chicago Press.
Dixon, H., & Haigh, M. (2009). Changing mathematics teachers’ conceptions of assessment and feedback. Teacher Development, 13(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13664530903044002
Dunwill, E. (2016, March 16). 4 changes that will shape the classroom of the future: Making education fully technological. E-Learning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/4- changes-will-shape-classroom-of-the-future-making-education-fully-technological El-Mounayri, H., Rogers, C., Fernandez, E., & Satterwhite, J. (2016, June). Assessment of
STEM e-learning in an immersive Virtual Reality (VR) environment [Paper presentation].
2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, New Orleans, USA. https://
doi.org/10.18260/p.26336
Ernst & Young. (2017, November). Leapfrogging to Education 4.0: Student at the core. Ernst
& Young LLP.
Evans, K., Hodkinson, P., Rainbird, H., & Unwin, L. (2007). Improving workplace learning (1st ed.). Routledge.
Fajaryati, N., & Akhyar, M. (2020). The employability skills needed to face the demands of work in the future: Systematic literature reviews. Open Engineering, 10(1), 595–603.
https://doi.org/10.1515/eng-2020-0072
Falchikov, N., & Thompson, K. (2008). Assessment: What drives innovation? Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 5(1), 55–67.
Fastier, M., & Mohamed, N. (2015). Implementation of formative assessment practices in Maldivian primary classrooms. Journal of Research, Policy & Practice of Teachers & Teacher Education, 5(2), 5–19.
Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership:
A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1120–
1145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.007
Ghavifekr, S. & Rosdy, W.A.W. (2015). Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 1(2), 175–191.
Global Partnership for Education. (2020). Results Report 2021. Global Partnership for Education.
Graven, M., & Lerman, S. (2003). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(2), 185–194. https://doi.
org/10.1023/a:1023947624004
Gunn, T. M., & Hollingsworth, M. (2013). The Implementation and assessment of a shared 21st century learning vision. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(3), 201–
228. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2013.10782603
Halili, S. H., Sulaiman, S., Sulaiman, H., & Razak, R. (2021). Embracing Industrial Revolution 4.0 in universities. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 1088(1), 012111. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/1088/1/012111
Hall, K., & Burke, W. (2003). Making formative assessment work: effective practice in the primary classroom. Open University Press.
Heitink, M., van der Kleij, F., Veldkamp, B., Schildkamp, K., & Kippers, W. (2016).
A systematic review of prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning in classroom practice. Educational Research Review, 17, 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
edurev.2015.12.002
Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170708900210 Hill, K., & McNamara, T. (2011). Developing a comprehensive, empirically based research
framework for classroom-based assessment. Language Testing, 29(3), 395–420. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0265532211428317
Hirschi, A. (2018). The fourth industrial revolution: Issues and implications for career research and practice. The Career Development Quarterly, 66(3), 192–204. https://doi.
org/10.1002/cdq.12142
Howard, S. K., & Mozejko, A. (2015). Teachers: technology, change and resistance. In M.
Henderson & G. Romeo (Eds.), Teaching and digital technologies (pp. 307–317). https://
doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781316091968.030
Hussin, A. A. (2018). Education 4.0 made simple: Ideas for teaching. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 6(3), 92–98.
Ismail, N. A., Wahid, N. A., Yusoff, A. S. M., Wahab, N. A., Rahim, B. H. A., Majid, N. A., Din, N. M. N., Ariffin, R. M., Adnan, W. I. W., & Zakaria, A. R. (2020). The challenges of Industrial Revolution (IR) 4.0 towards the teacher’s self-efficacy. Journal of Physics:
Conference Series, 1529. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1529/4/042062
Kapareliotis, I., Voutsina, K., & Patsiotis, A. (2019). Internship and employability prospects:
assessing student’s work readiness. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 9(4), 538–549. https://doi.org/10.1108/heswbl-08-2018-0086
Kazancoglu, Y., & Ozkan-Ozen, Y. D. (2018). Analyzing workforce 4.0 in the Fourth Industrial Revolution and proposing a road map from operations management perspective with fuzzy Dematel. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 31(6), 891–907. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeim-01-2017-0015
Kechagias, K. (2011). Teaching and assessing soft skills. Thessaloniki.
Kim, S., Raza, M., & Seidman, E. (2019). Improving 21st-century teaching skills: The key to effective 21st-century learners. Research in Comparative and International Education, 14(1), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499919829214
Langer, M., König, C. J., Gebhard, P., & André, E. (2016). Dear computer, teach me manners:
Testing virtual employment interview training. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 24(4), 312–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12150
Lase, D. (2019). Education and Industrial Revolution 4.0. Handayani Journal, 10(1), 48–59.
Lawrence, R., Lim, F. C., & Abdullah, H. (2019). Strengths and weaknesses of Education 4.0 in the higher education institution. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 9(2S3), 511–519. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijitee.b1122.
1292s319
Leitch, R., & Day, C. (2000). Action research and reflective practice: Towards a holistic view. Educational Action Research, 8(1), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09650790000200108
Lian, L. H., Yew, W. T., & Meng, C. C. (2014). Enhancing Malaysian teachers’ assessment literacy. International Education Studies, 7(10), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.
v7n10p74
Lisa, E., Hennelova, K., & Newman, D. (2019). Comparison between employers’ and students’ expectations in respect of employability skills of university graduates.
International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(1), 71–82.
Lumadi, M. W. (2013). E-learning’s impact on the academic performance of student teachers: A curriculum lens. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(14), 695. https://
doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n14p695
Maher, A., & Neild, K. (2005, January 27-28). Enhancing graduate employability in hospitality, leisure, sport and tourism [Paper presentation]. Enhancing Student Employability: Ninth Quality in Higher Education International Seminar, Birmingham, Sheffield Hallam University Research. http://shura.shu.ac.uk/4920/
Maria, M., Shahbodin, F., & Pee, N. C. (2018). Malaysian higher education system towards industry 4.0 – Current trends overview. AIP Conference Proceedings 2016. https://doi.
org/10.1063/1.5055483
Marriott, P., & Lau, A. (2008). The use of on-line summative assessment in an undergraduate financial accounting course. Journal of Accounting Education, 26(2), 73–90. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2008.02.001
Militello, M., & Berger, J. B. (2010). Understanding educational leadership in north‐west China. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 13(2), 185–202. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13603120902980812
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. L. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for the teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1954.
Misra, R. K., & Khurana, K. (2017). Employability skills among information technology professionals: A literature review. Procedia Computer Science, 122, 63–70. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.342
Mohan, M. D., Sarfraz, I., Hewege, C., & Rajendran, D. (2018). An exploration of global employability skills: A systematic research review. International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion, 9(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijwoe.2018.10012435 Munadi, S., Yuniarti, N., Jerusalem, M. A., & Herman-Syah. (2018). Employability skills
lulusan SMK dan relevansinya terhadap kebutuhan dunia kerja. UNY Press.
Nur, M., Anisaurrohmah, A., & Fauzi Hamidy, M. (2022). Facilitating complex thinking in educational psychology (The perspectives of Kelvin Seifert and Rosemary Sutton).
Indonesian Journal of Education (INJOE), 2(1), 12–26.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2008). Assessment for learning formative assessment. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40600533.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2015). OECD skills outlook 2015: Youth, skills, and employability. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/
e11c1c2d-en
Ottewill, R. M. (2003). What’s wrong with instrumental learning? The case of business and management. Education + Training, 45(4), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/
00400910310478111
Pauceanu, A. M., Ayman, M., & Rabie, N. (2020). Employability in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Economics and Sociology, 13(3), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071- 789X.2020/13-3/17
Pereira, A., & Romero, F. (2017). A review of the meanings and the implications of the Industry 4.0 concept. Procedia Manufacturing, 13, 1206–1214. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.032
Purnomo, P. (2017). The implementation of school-based lesson study at elementary school.
Jurnal Prima Edukasia, 5(2), 160–171. https://doi.org/10.21831/jpe.v5i2.14284 Salmon, G. (2019). May the fourth be with you: Creating Education 4.0. Journal of Learning
for Development, 6(2), 96–109.
Santos, J. M., & Castro, R. D. (2021). Technological Pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: Application of learning in the classroom by pre-service teachers (PST). Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 3(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ssaho.2021.100110
Saudelli, M. G., & Ciampa, K. (2014). Exploring the role of TPACK and teacher self-efficacy:
an ethnographic case study of three iPad language arts classes. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(2), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2014.979865
Shafie, H., Abd Majid, F., & Ismail, I. S. (2019). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in teaching 21st century skills in the 21st century classroom. Asian Journal of University Education, 15(3), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v15i3.7818
Shatto, B., & Erwin, K. (2016). Moving on from millennials: Preparing for Generation Z. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 47(6), 253–254. https://doi.
org/10.3928/00220124-20160518-05
Singh, P., Thambusamy, R., Ramly, A., Abdullah, I. H., & Mahmud, Z. (2013). Perception differential between employers and instructors on the importance of employability skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 616–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2013.07.133
Stiggins, R. J., & Chappuis, J. (2016). An introduction to student-involved assessment for learning. Pearson Education.
Sun, B., Chikwem, U., & Nyingifa, D. (2019). VRLearner: A virtual reality based assessment tool in higher education. 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), 1640–1645. https://doi.org/10.1109/vr.2019.8798129
Syed Chear, S. L. (2017). Pengajaran dan pembelajaran melalui aplikasi Whatsapp dan Telegram di universiti swasta. Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia, 42(2), 87–97. https://doi.
org/10.17576/jpen-2017-42.02-02
Trumbull, E., & Gerzon, N. (2013). Professional development on formative assessment: Insights from research and practice. WestEd.
van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C. W., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 475–511. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314564881 Van, Z. E., Venter, T., & Bruwer, J. P. (2021). The catalysed use of Fourth Industrial Revolution
Interventions in South African higher education institutions, due to COVID-19, and its influence on efficacy. Expert Journal of Business and Management, 9(1), 64–73.
Volante, L., & Fazio, X. (2007). Exploring teacher candidates’ assessment literacy:
Implications for teacher education reform and professional development. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne de l’éducation, 30(3), 749–770. https://doi.
org/10.2307/20466661
Wan, C. D., Sirat, M., & Razak, D. A. (2018, September). Education in Malaysia towards a developed nation. Yusof Ishak Foundation. https://www.iseas.edu.sg/images/pdf/
ISEASEWP2018-4Wan.pdf
Wanner, T., & Palmer, E. (2015). Personalising learning: Exploring student and teacher perceptions about flexible learning and assessment in a flipped university course.
Computers & Education, 88, 354–369.
Washington, B. (2019, September 17). The importance of professional development in the 21st century. Graduate Programs for Educators. https://www.graduateprogram.org/2019/09/
the-importance-of-professional-development-in-the-21st-century/
Whiting, K. (2020, October 20). These are the top 10 job skills of tomorrow – and how long it takes to learn them. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/
top-10-work-skills-of-tomorrow-how-long-it-takes-to-learn-them/
World Economic Forum. (2020, October). The future of jobs report. World Economic Forum.
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2020.pdf
Wylie, E. C., Christine, J. L., & Goe, L. (2009, March). Teacher professional development focused on formative assessment: Changing teachers, changing schools. Education Testing Service. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505558.pdf
Yan, Z., & Cheng, E. C. K. (2015). Primary teachers’ attitudes, intentions and practices regarding formative assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 128–136. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.002
Yeole, P. (2019, July 29). Automated marking of exam papers using machine learning algorithms and cloud computing. Medium. https://medium.com/ai-techsystems/automated- marking-of-exam-papers-using-machine-learning-algorithms-and-cloud-computing- 410c01570e4e
