Digital benchmarking tools for assessment in maritime English training
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34142/2709-7986.2026.31.1.13Keywords:
assessment, benchmarking, digital tools, digitalisation, formative assessment, marine engineers, Maritime English trainingAbstract
Purpose. The purpose of this study is to provide a theoretical justification and experimental verification of the effectiveness of using digital benchmarking tools in the assessment system of English-language training for future marine engineers (ship mechanics). The research focuses on improving the quality of assessment by integrating benchmarking principles with digital technologies and aligning evaluation practices with modern educational and professional requirements.
Methodology. The research methodology is based on a combination of theoretical and empirical methods. Theoretical methods include analysis, synthesis, and generalisation of scientific and methodological literature on assessment, benchmarking, and digitalisation in education. Empirical methods involve pre- and post-testing to measure the level of English-language professional competence, questionnaires to identify cadets’ motivation and attitudes, pedagogical observation to monitor engagement and participation, and analysis of data obtained from the Moodle learning management system. The study was conducted among cadets of a maritime educational institution within a digitally supported learning environment, where benchmarking tools and formative assessment strategies, including self- and peer-assessment, were systematically implemented.
Results. The findings demonstrate a positive dynamic in the development of cadets’ English-language professional competence following the implementation of digital benchmarking tools. The results indicate increased learning activity, improved academic performance, and higher levels of motivation. Additionally, cadets showed a better understanding of assessment criteria and greater ability to monitor their own progress. The integration of self-assessment and peer-assessment contributed to the development of reflective skills, critical thinking, and learner autonomy. Data from the LMS analytics confirmed consistent engagement with course activities and progressive improvement in performance indicators.
Conclusions. The study confirms that digital benchmarking tools are an effective means of enhancing the quality of assessment in Maritime English training for future marine engineers. Their use ensures greater objectivity, transparency, and alignment of assessment with learning outcomes, while also supporting the development of cadets’ evaluative competence. The integration of digital technologies into assessment practices promotes a learner-centred approach and continuous feedback. Future research should focus on expanding the use of advanced digital and AI-based tools, as well as exploring adaptive assessment models and broader implementation across different educational contexts.
Downloads
References
Biliakovska, O. O. (2021). Benchmarkinh yak vazhlyvyi instrument udoskonalennia systemy upravlinnia yakistiu osvity v universyteti [Benchmarking as an important tool of improving the management system of the quality of education at university]. Naukovi zapysky. Seriia: Pedahohichni nauky – Academic Notes. Series: Pedagogical Sciences, 201, 10–13. https://doi.org/10.36550/2415-7988-2021-1-201-10-13 [in Ukrainian].
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Camp, R.C. (1995). Business Process Benchmarking; Finding and Implementing Best Practices. APQC Quality Press.
Chekalovska, H. Z. (2018). Benchmarkinh yak metod pidvyshchennia konkurentospromozhnosti zakladiv vyshchoi osvity [Benchmarking as a method of increasing competitiveness of higher education institutions]. Prychornomorski ekonomichni studii – Black Sea Economic Studies, 35, 76–79. http://dspace.wunu.edu.ua/handle/316497/38958 [in Ukrainian].
Cherniaieva, A. Vykorystannia novitnikh tsyfrovykh instrumentiv ta tekhnolohii vedennia biznesu [Using the latest digital tools and business technologies]. Ekonomika ta suspilstvo – Economy and Society, 60. https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0072/2024-60-89 [in Ukrainian].
Chetveryk, V., & Veretiuk, T. (2025). The role of generative artificial intelligence in modern foreign language education. In Modernization of today's science: experience and trends: Collection of scientific papers «SCIENTIA» with Proceedings of the VIII International Scientific and Theoretical Conference, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom, May 30, 2025 (pp. 192–195). International Center of Scientific Research. https://dspace.hnpu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/18998
Ciesla, A. (n.d.). A framework for building assessment and learning tools for digital skills. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348704033
Diahyleva, O., Kononova, O., Yurzhenko, A., & Svyryda, V. (2025). Development of professional competence of future specialists in the operation of shipboard technical systems and complexes using LMS MOODLE. Scientific Bulletin of Mukachevo State University. Series “Pedagogy and Psychology”, 11(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.52534/msu-pp1.2025.51
Diahyleva, O., Yurzhenkо, A. & Kononova, O. (2024). Benchmarking in online maritime education: tracing the evolution of assessment in electronic educational environments. Educational Dimension, 11, 146–159. https://doi.org/10.55056/ed.804
Epper, R. M. (1999). Applying Benchmarking to Higher Education:Some lessons from experience. Change the Magazine of Higher Learning, 31(6), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091389909604230
Furtak E. M. (2022). Formative Assessment. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781138609877-REE62-1
Hattie, J., & Larsen, S. N. (2020). How to differentiate between the how, what, and why of education. In The Purposes of Education (pp. 197–215). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367815561-10
Isak, L., Babak, O., & Hren, Y. (2023). Tsyfrovi instrumenty u profesiinii osviti [Digital tools in professional education training]. Profesiina osvita: metodolohiia, teoriia ta tekhnolohii – Professional Education Methodology Theory and Technologies, 18, 104–125. https://doi.org/10.31470/2415-3729-2023-18-104-125 [in Ukrainian].
Kalnik, O. (2013). Tradytsiini ta innovatsiini metody kontroliu navchalnykh dosiahnen iz humanitarnykh dystsyplin [Traditional and innovative methods of achievement assessment in teaching of the humanities]. Pedahohichni nauky – Pedagogical Sciences, 3, 37–42. http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/pena_2013_3_8 [in Ukrainian].
Kostikova, I., & Miasoiedova, S. (2022). E-Learning Teaching: Supportive Online Course ‘English Fastpass’. Educational Challenges, 27(2), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.34142/2709-7986.2022.27.2.07
Levy-Feldman, I. (2025). The role of assessment in improving education and promoting educational equity. Education Sciences, 15(2), Article 224. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020224
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2002.12086158
Lutsenko, H. V., Podolian, O. M., & Hrytsenko, V. H. (2024). Vykorystannia mozhlyvostei shtuchnoho intelektu platformy Classtime dlia otsiniuvannia rezultativ navchannia. [Using Classtime’s AI-based testing in learning outcomes assessment]. Visnyk Hlukhivskoho natsionalnoho pedahohichnoho universytetu imeni Oleksandra Dovzhenka. Seriia: «Pedahohichni nauky» – Bulletin of Oleksandr Dovzhenko Hlukhiv National Pedagogical University, 54(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.31376/2410-0897-2024-1-54-31-40 [in Ukrainian].
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Niedialkova, K. V. (2025). Vykorystannia tekhnolohii shtuchnoho intelektu dlia otsiniuvannia uchniv ta otsiniuvannia koleh [Using Artificial Intelligence Technologies for Assessment and Peer Assessment of Students]. Problemy suchasnykh transformatsii. Seriia: pedahohika ta psykholohiia – Problems of Modern Transformations. Series: Pedagogy and Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.54929/2786-9199-2025-9-08-04 [in Ukrainian].
Okhrimenko, H. V. (2016) Vykorystannia benchmarkinhu v realizatsii marketynhu osvitnikh posluh vyshchymy navchalnymy zakladamy Ukrainy [The implementation of benchmarking process in marketing education services by Ukrainian Universities]. Marketynh i menedzhment innovatsii – Marketing and Management of Innovations, (7)1, 84–93. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2016.1-07 [in Ukrainian].
Perminova, L.A., Chastnyk, O.S., Diomidova, N.Yu. (2024). Porivnialnyi analiz tradytsiinykh ta alternatyvnykh metodiv otsiniuvannia znan studentiv. [Comparative analysis of traditional and alternative methods of student knowledge assessment]. Perspektyvy ta innovatsii nauky – Perspectives and Innovations of Science, 41, 431–442. https://doi.org/10.52058/2786-4952-2024-7(41)-431-442 [in Ukrainian].
Popova, L. (2025). Benchmarking in the System of Educational Quality Assurance: Key Principles and Challenges in Ukraine. In Abstracts of XIV International Scientific and Practical Conference (pp. 138–144). European Conference. https://eu-conf.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/learning-technology-and-inventions-problems-of-modern-education.pdf
Povidaychik, M.M. (2021). Benchmarkinhovyi pidkhid do formuvannia konkurentospromozhnosti vchyteli [Benchmarking approach to the formation of teacher competitiveness]. Norwegian Journal of development of the International Science, 56, 58–61. https://dspace.uzhnu.edu.ua/jspui/bitstream/lib/37058/1.pdf [in Ukrainian].
Sadler, D. R. (2010). Assessment in Higher Education. In P. Peterson, E. Baker & B. McGaw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 249–255). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-044894-7.00336-5
Strydom, F. (2016). Higher education learning outcomes assessment: international perspectives. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 492–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1139097
Umfreville, C., & Dodd, R. (2024). Formative feedback and student engagement in higher education. In Future Facing Learning and AI in Higher Education 2026 (FFL26). ScienceOpen. https://doi.org/10.14293/FFL26.000007.v1
Vashchenko, L. (2021). Otsiniuvannia navchalnykh dosiahnen u zakladakh zahalnoi serednoi osvity: pohliad uchasnykiv osvitnoho protsesu [Assessment of academic achievements in general secondary education: the view of participants in the educational process]. Neperervna profesiina osvita: teoriia i praktyka – Continuing professional education: theory and practice, 2(67), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.28925/1609-8595.2021.2.7 [in Ukrainian].
Vasylkova N. V. (2013). Benchmarkinh u sferi vyshchoi osvity [Benchmarking in higher education]. Ekonomika ta pidpryiemnytstvo – Economics and entrepreneurship, 31, 106–115. https://ir.kneu.edu.ua/handle/2010/7247 [in Ukrainian].
Yurzhenko, A., Kononova, O., & Diahyleva, O. (2025). The use of the Callan method in maritime English teaching. Educational Challenges, 30(2), 126–140. https://doi.org/10.34142/2709-7986.2025.30.2.10
Zepke, N., Neutze, G. & Leach, L. (2014). Benchmarking, Assessment and the Multidisciplinary Curriculum. In M. Armstrong, S. Brown, & H. Smith (Eds.), Benchmarking and Threshold Standards in Higher Education (pp. 197–206). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315042244-22
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Olena Kononova

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.