You are here

Home » Content

USING COMPUTER-BASED TESTING AS ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT METHOD OF STUDENT LEARNING IN DISTANCE EDUCATION

Journal Name:

  • The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education

Publication Year:

  • 2010

Key Words:

Author Name
Abstract (2. Language): 
This paper addresses the use of computer-based testing in distance education, based on the experience of Universitas Terbuka (UT), Indonesia. Computer-based testing has been developed at UT for reasons of meeting the specific needs of distance students as the following: - students‘ inability to sit for the scheduled test, - conflicting test schedules, and - students‘ flexibility to take examination to improve their grades. In 2004, UT initiated a pilot project in the development of system and program for computer-based testing method. Then in 2005 and 2006 tryouts in the use of computer-based testing methods were conducted in 7 Regional Offices that were considered as having sufficient supporting recourses. The results of the tryouts revealed that students were enthusiastic in taking computer-based tests and they expected that the test method would be provided by UT as alternative to the traditional paper and pencil test method. UT then implemented computer-based testing method in 6 and 12 Regional Offices in 2007 and 2008 respectively. The computer-based testing was administered in the city of the designated Regional Office and was supervised by the Regional Office staff. The development of the computer-based testing was initiated with conducting tests using computers in networked configuration. The system has been continually improved, and it currently uses devices linked to the internet or the World Wide Web. The construction of the test involves the generation and selection of the test items from the item bank collection of the UT Examination Center. Thus the combination of the selected items compromises the test specification. Currently UT has offered 250 courses involving the use of computer-based testing. Students expect that more courses are offered with computer-based testing in Regional Offices within easy access by students.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-using-computer-based-testing-alternative-assessment-method-student-learning-distance-education.pdf
  • 2
161-169
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

Achtemeier, S., Morris, L., & Finnegan, C. (2003). Consideration for developing evaluation on online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 7(1). Retrieved June 25, 2009 from http://sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v7n1/v7n1_achtemeier.asp
Alexander. M. W., Bartlett, J. E., Truell, A. D., & Ouwenga, K. (2001) Testing in a computer technology course: an investigation on equivalency in performance between online and paper and pencil methods. Retrieved June 20 2009 from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JCTE/v18n1/pdf/alexander.pdf
Aojula, H., Barber, J., Cullen, R., & Andrews, J. (2006). Computer-based, online summative assessment in undergraduate pharmacy teaching: The Manchester experience. Pharmacy Education, December 2006; 6(4), 229-236.
Balasundaram, S. R. & Ramadoss. (2005, November). Web technologies for student assessment in distance education. Presented in ICDE International Conference, November 19-23, 2005, in New Delhi, India.
Bishop, P. (2000). CTI maths and stats workshop 18. Retrieved December 12, 2008 from http://www.bham.ac.uk/crimath/workshops/wass.htm
Bitzer, D. L. (2000). A comparative analysis of web based testing and evaluation systems. Retrieved June 01, 2009, from http://renoir.csc.nscu.edu/MRA/Reports/ WebBasedTesting.html.
Cassady, J. C. & Gridley, B. E, (2005). The effects of online formative and summative assessment on test anxiety and performance. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(1). October 2005. Retrieved December 12, 2008 from http://www.jtla.org
Clariana, R. B., & Wallace, P. E. (2002). Paper based versus computer based assessment: Key factors associated with the test mode effect. British Journal of Educational Technology 33 (5) 593-602
168
Duran, R. P. (2000). Implications of electronic technology for NAEP assessment. Palo Alto, CA: NAEP Validity Studies (NVS) American Institutes for Research.
Eastin, M. S., & Larose, R. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divine. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1). Retrieved June 07, 2009 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue1/eastin.html
Gibson, E. J., Brewer, P. W., Dholakia, A., Vouk, M. A., & Bitzer, D. L. (2000). A comparative analysis of web based testing and evaluation systems. Retrieved June 07, 2009 from http://renoir.csc.nscu.edu/MRA/Reports/WebBasedTesting.html.
Jones, E. T., Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H., & Dooley, K. E. (2002). Faculty philosophical position towards distance education: Competency, value, and educational technology support. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(1). Retrieved June 25, 2009 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring5 1/jones5 1 .html
Jones. T, Options and Considerations for Distance Education Learner Assessment and Self-Assessment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE. ISSN 1302-6488. Volume 3 Number 3. July 2002). 2002.
Lee, M., & Tsai, C. (2005). Exploring high school students‘ and teachers‘ preferences toward the constructivist Internet-based learning environments in Taiwan. Educational Studies, 31(2), 149-167.
Miller, E. T., Neal, D. J., Roberts, L. J., Baer, J. S., Cressler, S. O., Metrik, J., & Marlatt, G. A. (2002, March). Test-retest reliability of alcohol measures: Is there a difference between internet-based assessment and traditional methods? Psychology of additive behaviors, Volume 16(1). March 2002. 56-63. Retrieved in January 07, 2009 from http://gateway1.ma.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi
Morgan. C. O‘Reilly. M. Assessing Open and Distance Learners. London: Kogan Page. 1999.
Newman, C. (2000). Online testing rated. Advertising-Age, 71(20), 64. Retrieved January 07, 2009 from http://147.226.94.254:5239/per
Ogilvie, R. W., Trusk, T.C., Fitzharris, T. P., Blue, A. V. (1999). Computer administered formative and summative exams in a medical basic science courses. Retrieved 03 November 2008 from http://www.aum.iawf.unibe.ch/did/ zsfhd.html
Poggio, J., Glasnapp, D.R., Yang, X., Poggio, A. J. (2005). A comparative evaluation of score results from computerized and paper & pencil mathematics testing in a large scale state assessment program. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(6). February 2005. Retrieved December 12, 2008 from http://www.jtla.org
Puhan, G., Boughton, K., & Kim, S (2007). Examining differences in examinee performance in paper and pencil and computerized testing. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 6(3). Retrieved December 12, 2008 from http://www.jtla.org
Rowe, N.C. (2004). Cheating in online student assessment: Beyond plagiarism. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, volume VII, Number II, Summer 2004. State University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center.
Savery, J. R. (2002). Faculty and student perceptions of technology integration in teaching. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(2), 1-16).
169
Tsai, M., & Tsai, C. (2003). Information searching strategies in web-based science learning: The role of Internet self-efficacy. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(1), 43-50.
Tsai, C. (2005). Preferences toward Internet-based learning environments: High school students‘ perspectives for science teaching. Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 203-213).
Wang, T.H. (2007). What strategies are effective for formative assessment in an e-learning environment? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 171-186.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com