Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education
Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education

Advancing Physics and Physics Education Through Research and Innovation

SINTA

2.396

Impact

Gscholar

11

H-Index

Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education

Advancing Physics and Physics Education Through Research and Innovation

Single Subject Design for Digital Assessment in Secondary Education: Exploring Opportunities and Challenges from Teachers' Perspectives

Nisa Karmila
Bina Bangsa Private High School-01
Indonesia
karmilanisa8@gmail.com
Amin Ajlouni
King’s Academy
Jordan
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aims to explore teachers’ perspectives regarding the opportunities and challenges of implementing Single Subject Design (SSD) in digital assessment practices at the secondary education level and to identify the potential contribution of SSD to individualized and continuous assessment processes.

    Methodology: This study employed a descriptive qualitative research design. Data were collected through observation and semi-structured interviews using observation sheets and interview guidelines. Purposive sampling was used to select participants. Digital tools such as Google Classroom, Quizizz, Microsoft Excel, and digital portfolios were identified during the study. Data were analyzed using the Miles and Huberman interactive model consisting of data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing and verification.

    Main Findings: The findings indicated that digital assessment had been implemented through various platforms to support assessment activities in secondary education. Teachers perceived that Single Subject Design offered opportunities for repeated measurements, individualized monitoring, and systematic documentation of learning progress. However, several challenges were identified, including limited understanding of SSD, time constraints, workload, differences in digital literacy, and technological limitations. Teachers also demonstrated positive attitudes toward the potential integration of SSD into digital assessment practices.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study provides a qualitative perspective on the opportunities and challenges of integrating Single Subject Design into digital assessment from teachers’ viewpoints in secondary education. Unlike previous studies focusing mainly on intervention outcomes, this research emphasizes practical experiences and contextual factors influencing implementation, thereby contributing new insights into evidence-based and student-centered assessment practices.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    N. Karmila and A. Ajlouni, “Single Subject Design for Digital Assessment in Secondary Education: Exploring Opportunities and Challenges from Teachers’ Perspectives”, Sch. Jo. Phs. Ed, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 208–214, Aug. 2026, doi: 10.37251/sjpe.v7i4.3405.

    More Citation Formats

  • 0
    Abstract views
    0
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. D. Domínguez-figaredo, I. Gil-jaurena, and D. Domínguez-figaredo, “Effects of familiarity with digital assessment in online education education,” Distance Educ., vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 301–317, 2025, doi: 10.1080/01587919.2024.2372260.
    2. J. H. Nieminen, M. Bearman, and R. Ajjawi, “Designing the digital in authentic assessment: Is it fit for purpose?,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 529–543, 2023, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2022.2089627.
    3. J. Alderton, N. Pratt, and J. Alderton, “Filling gaps: Assessment software and the production of mathematics and its teaching and learning in primary schools,” Crit. Stud. Educ., vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 501–515, 2022, doi: 10.1080/17508487.2021.1917435.
    4. N. Litvak and F. Kula, “No exam: Assessment of third-year engineering students on the basis of self-generated Statistics cases,” Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 647–655, 2022, doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2021.1982041.
    5. S. Zeivots et al., “Walking the tightrope of quality assessment: Balancing perspectives and priorities of stakeholder groups,” Stud. High. Educ., vol. 5079, pp. 1–18, 2026, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2026.2619909.
    6. K. R. K. Leuverink and A. M. L. R. Aarts, “Exploring secondary education teachers’ research attitude,” Educ. Stud., vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 702–721, 2024, doi: 10.1080/03055698.2021.1982676.
    7. R. Meylani, “A comparative analysis of traditional and modern approaches to assessment and evaluation in education,” Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilim. Derg., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 520–555, 2024, doi: 10.51460/baebd.1386737.
    8. V. J. Owan, K. B. Abang, D. O. Idika, E. O. Etta, and B. A. Bassey, “Exploring the potential of artificial intelligence tools in educational measurement and assessment,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 19, no. 8, 2023, doi: 10.29333/ejmste/13428.
    9. J. Bloemert, E. Jansen, and W. van de Grift, “Exploring EFL literature approaches in Dutch secondary education,” Lang. Cult. Curric., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 169–188, 2016, doi: 10.1080/07908318.2015.1136324.
    10. L. Tetzlaff, U. Hartmann, H. Dumont, and G. Brod, “Assessing individualized instruction in the classroom: Comparing teacher, student, and observer perspectives,” Learn. Instr., vol. 82, p. 101655, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101655.
    11. L. M. Laaksonen and S. Kosunen, “Exploring private supplementary tutoring in finnish general upper secondary education,” Nord. J. Stud. Educ. Policy, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2024, doi: 10.1080/20020317.2024.2302195.
    12. W. Schenke, J. H. van Driel, F. P. Geijsel, and M. L. L. Volman, “Closing the feedback loop: A productive interplay between practice-based research and school development through cross-professional collaboration in secondary education,” Prof. Dev. Educ., vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 860–880, 2017, doi: 10.1080/19415257.2016.1258654.
    13. D. Amanova, D. Matyushko, A. Bakytzhan, A. Bolatbekova, Y. Sharapatov, and D. Silischev, “Assessment of perceived objectivity of clinical evaluation methods in surgical education : An approach using a digital platform,” Futur. Sci. OA, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 2026, doi: 10.1080/20565623.2025.2591440.
    14. X.-Y. Wu, “Exploring the effects of digital technology on deep learning: A meta-analysis,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 425–458, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-12307-1.
    15. M. Hazans, R. B. Holmen, J. Upenieks, and O. Žabko, “STEM-oriented secondary education in Latvia: spatial inequalities in access and achievements,” Reg. Stud. Reg. Sci., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 682–702, 2025, doi: 10.1080/21681376.2025.2525432.
    16. J. Tondeur, O. Trevisan, S. K. Howard, and J. van Braak, “Preparing preservice teachers to teach with digital technologies: An update of effective SQD-strategies,” Comput. Educ., vol. 232, p. 105262, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105262.
    17. S. M. Al-bahlani, P. Ecke, and S. M. Al-, “Assessment competence and practices including digital assessment literacy of postsecondary english language teachers in Oman,” Cogent Educ., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1–18, 2023, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2023.2239535.
    18. M. Venken, “Transforming secondary education in the Belgian–German borderlands (1918–1939),” Hist. Educ., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 244–265, 2022, doi: 10.1080/0046760X.2021.1977856.
    19. R. Powell, G. Skoog, P. Troutman, and C. Jones, “Sustaining a nonlinear integrative learning context: Middle level teachers’ perspectives,” Res. Middle Lev. Educ. Q., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 23–63, 1997, doi: 10.1080/10848959.1997.11670094.
    20. A. Ohlsson, F. Borg, and N. Gericke, “Education for sustainability in preschool: Swedish preschool teachers’ perspectives,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2353477.
    21. J. Sayers, J. Petersson, G. Marschall, and P. Andrews, “Teachers’ perspectives on homework: Manifestations of culturally situated common sense,” Educ. Rev., vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 905–926, 2022, doi: 10.1080/00131911.2020.1806786.
    22. J. Shepherd, “Teachers’ perspectives and practices relating to refugee girls: A mixed-methods multidisciplinary survey,” Educ. 3-13, vol. 3, no. 13, pp. 1–12, 2024, doi: 10.1080/03004279.2024.2413870.
    23. J. Holzer, S. Bürger, S. Samek-Krenkel, C. Spiel, and B. Schober, “Conceptualisation of students’ school-related wellbeing: Students’ and teachers’ perspectives,” Educ. Res., vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 474–496, 2021, doi: 10.1080/00131881.2021.1987152.
    24. R. Sawalhi and Y. Chaaban, “Mentor teachers’ and student teachers’ perspectives toward teacher leadership,” Mentor. Tutoring Partnersh. Learn., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 70–88, 2021, doi: 10.1080/13611267.2021.1899586.
    25. N. Dayo, S. Said Metwaly, and W. Van Den Noortgate, “Evaluating technology enhanced learning by using single-case experimental design: A systematic review,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 2457–2477, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.1111/bjet.13468.
    26. M. C. Oliver, A. Woods-McConney, D. Maor, and A. McConney, “Female senior secondary physics students’ engagement in science: A qualitative study of constructive influences,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 4, no. 1, p. 4, 2017, doi: 10.1186/s40594-017-0060-9.
    27. S. Hanyfah, G. R. Fernandes, and I. Budiarso, “The implementation of descriptive qualitative methods for customer data processing applications in car wash services,” Semnas Ristek (Seminar Nas. Ris. dan Inov. Teknol., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 339–344, 2022, doi: 10.30998/semnasristek.v6i1.5697.
    28. D. S. Ruhansih, “Descriptive qualitative research methods from the perspective of guidance and counseling,” QUANTA J. Kaji. Bimbing. dan Konseling dalam Pendidik., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2024, doi: 10.22460/q.v1i1p1-10.497.
    29. N. M. Joseph, J. Leonard, K. M. Viesca, and B. Hamilton, “Mathematics teachers’ perspectives on online professional development modules,” NABE J. Res. Pract., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 89–121, 2025, doi: 10.1080/26390043.2015.12067785.
    30. C. Xenofontos, Y. Solomon, and H. Knudsmoen, “Norwegian teachers’ perspectives on inclusive practices in the mathematics classroom,” Int. J. Incl. Educ., vol. 29, no. 14, pp. 2512–2528, 2025, doi: 10.1080/13603116.2024.2361347.
    31. R. Straker, T. A. Exell, R. Farana, J. Hamill, and G. Irwin, “Biomechanical responses to landing strategies of female artistic gymnasts,” Eur. J. Sport Sci., vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 1678–1685, 2022, doi: 10.1080/17461391.2021.1976842.
    32. M. Judge, “Covid 19 school closures and the uptake of a digital assessment for learning pilot project during Ireland’s national lockdown,” Irish Educ. Stud., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 419–429, 2021, doi: 10.1080/03323315.2021.1917443.
    33. P. Tuite, “Temporal discrimination learning for treatment of gait dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease: A feasibility study using single subject design,” J. Park. Restless Legs Syndr., vol. 7733, p. 8, 2011, doi: 10.2147/jprls.s37043.
    34. L. Fälth, T. Björklund, and H. Selenius, “Intervention using speech-to-text-technology for text production: A single-subject design study on students with mild intellectual disability,” Cogent Educ., vol. 12, no. 1, p., 2025, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2590917.
    35. L. Fälth, S. Nilsson, T. Björklund, I. Svensson, and H. Selenius, “Using digital technology for text comprehension: A single-subject design study on students with mild intellectual disability,” Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ., vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1045–1059, 2025, doi: 10.1080/08856257.2025.2474841.
    36. R. J. Palisano, “The case report, case study, and single subject design,” Phys. Occup. Ther. Pediatr., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1–5, 2007, doi: 10.1300/J006v27n04_01.
    37. T. Meyer et al., “Remote digital assessment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis functional rating scale–a multicenter observational study,” Amyotroph. Lateral Scler. Front. Degener., vol. 24, no. 3–4, pp. 175–184, 2023, doi: 10.1080/21678421.2022.2104649.
    38. A. Raaheim et al., “Digital assessment–how does it challenge local practices and national law? A Norwegian case study,” Eur. J. High. Educ., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 219–231, 2019, doi: 10.1080/21568235.2018.1541420.
    39. P. Ackerlauer, J. M. Diego-Mantecón, and Z. Lavicza, “Digital assessment data to provide formative feedback in mathematics: a longitudinal study of teachers’ engagement with Quop in Austria,” Teach. Dev., vol. 00, no. 00, pp. 1–17, 2026, doi: 10.1080/13664530.2026.2616491.
    40. Z. Akhtar and E. Perea-borobio, “Navigating the digital shift : Investigating the viability of digital assessments for electrical and electronic engineering students,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 714–733, 2026, doi: 10.1080/03043797.2025.2523549.