UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract : Perpustakaan Tuanku Bainun |
| This article explores the probable relationship between the attitude towards the use of computer and test performance on Computer-Based-Tests (CBT) among Iranian university English as foreign language (EFL) learners and comparing the results of CBT and Paper-and-Pencil Test (PPT). Analyzing data from test results and follow up interviews, this study revealed that test takers showed a high positive attitude and preference towards the use of computer and computerized tests. This study adapted a mixed-method approach. A sample of 202 Iranian EFL learners participated in the study given two equivalent English proficiency tests in computerized and paper and pencil types. Using paired-sample t-test, correlational analysis, and ANOVA, the findings of this study indicated that Iranian test takers had overall positive attitudes towards computerized tests with higher scores on paper and pencil tests. The qualitative analysis showed that they mostly preferred computerized test believing that it largely reflected their overall English knowledge. In addition, it was found that test takers did better on PPT because they believed that this type of testing was more familiar and less threatening for students. The findings of this study have implications for test developers and curriculum providers in the light of further improvement and promotion of test and the process of test administration.
KeywordsTest taker_s attitude, Test mode preference, Computer-Based &Test, Paper-and-Pencil Test, EFL learners |
| References |
Al-Amir, S. (2009). Computer based testing vs. paper based testing: Establishing the comparability of reading tests through the revolution of a new comparability model in a Saudi EFL context. Unpublished thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics. University of Essex (UK).
Anakwe, B. (2008). Comparison of student performance in paper-based versus computer-based testing. Journal of Education for Business, September/October, 13-17.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2000). Language Testing in Practice. (3rded.). Oxford University Press. UK.
Bugbee, A., & Brent, F. (1990). Testing by computers: Findings in six years of use 1982-1988. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(1), 87-100.
Chapelle, C. A., & Douglas, D. (2006). Assessing language through computer technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chapelle, C. (2007). Technology and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 27, 98- 114.
Choi, I., Kim, K., & Boo, J. (2003). Comparability of a paper-based language test and a computer-based language test. Language Testing, 20(3), 295-320.
Chua, Y. P. (2012).Effects of computer-based testing on test performance and testingmotivation. Computers in Human Behaviour.28(5), 1580-1586.
Clariana, R., & Wallace, P. (2002). Paper-based versus computer-based assessment: key factors associated with the test mode effect. British Journal of Educational Technology.33(5) 593-602.
Cohen, A. D. (1994). Assessing Language Ability in the Classroom. Second edition. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.
Davies, A., & Elder, C. (2004). The Handbook of Applied Linguistic. UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Eagly, A. H., & Shelly C. (1998). “Attitude Structure and Function”. In D.T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fisk, and G. Lindsey (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 269–322). New York: McGowan-Hill.
Earl, L. M. (Ed.). (2003). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fan J. (2014). Chinese test takers’ attitudes towards the VersantEnglish Test: a mixed-methods approach. Language Testing in Asia, 4(6), 1-17.
Flowers, C., Do-Hong, K., Lewis, P., & Davis, V. C. (2011). A comparison of computer-based testing and penciland- paper testing for students with a read- aloud accommodation. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(1), 1-12.
Gardner, R. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitude & Motivation. London: EdwardArnold.
Harde, P. L., Crowson, H. M., Xie, K., & Ly, C. (2007). Testing differential effects of computer-based, web-based, and paper-based administration of questionnaire research instruments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(1), 5-22.
Higgins, J., Russell, M., & Hoffmann, T. (2005). Examining the Effect of Computer-Based Passage Presentation on Reading Test Performance. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(4), pp. 5-34.
Honaker, L. (1988). The equivalence of computerised and conventional MMPI administration: A critical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 561-77.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Li, M., &Pu, H. (2010). Comparison between CBT and PBT: assessment of gap-filling and multiple-choice cloze in reading comprehension. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(6), 935-941.
Loyd, B. H., &Gressard, C. (1985). Reliability and factorial validity of computer attitude scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 501-505.
Maguire, K. A., Smith, D. A., Brallier, S. A., & Palm, L. J. (2010). Computer-based testing: A comparison of computer-based and paper-and-pencil assessment. Academy of Educational Leadership, 14(4), 117-125.
McDonald, A. (2002). The impact of individual differences on the equivalence of computer-based and paper-andpencil educational assessments. Computers & Education, 39, 299-312.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.) Educational Measurement (3rd ed.). London: Collier Macmillan Publishers.
Mojarrad, H., Hemmati, F., JafariGohar, M., and Sadeghi, A. (2013). Computer-based assessment (CBA) Vs. paper/pencil-based assessment (PPBA): An investigation into the performance and attitude of Iranian EFL learners' Reading Comprehension. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistic World. 4(4),418-428.
Noyes, J. M., Garland, K. J., & Robbins, L. (2004). Paper-based versus computer-based assessment: Is workload another test mode effect. British Journal ofEducational Technology, 35(1), 111-13.
Paek, P. (2005). Recent trends in comparability studies. Pearson Educational Measurement Research Reports. Research Report 05-05. Pearson Educational Measurement. USA.
Pomplun, M., Frey, S., & Becker, D. (2002). The score equivalence of paper- and-pencil and computerized versions of a speeded test of reading comprehension. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(2), 337- 354.
Sam, H. K., Othman, A. E. A., &Nordin, Z. S. (2005).Computer self-eeficacy, computer anxiety, and attitudes toward the internet: A study among undergraduates in UNIMAS. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (4), 205- 219.
Sawaki, Y. (2001). Comparability of conventional and computerized tests of reading in a second language. Language Learning & Technology.5(2), 38-59
Shohamy, E. (2001).The Power of Tests – A Critical Perspective on the Uses of Language Tests. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Ltd.
Tanner, D. E. (2001). Authentic assessment: A solution, or part of the problem. High School Journal, 85(1), 6-13.
Ward, T., Hooper, S., &Hannafin, K. (1989). The effects of computerized tests on the performance and attitudes of college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 327-333.
Way, W. D., Davis, L. L., & Fitzpatrick, S. (2006). Score comparability of online and paper administrations of the Texas assessment of knowledge and skills. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA. Available at http://www.pearsonedmeasurement.com/downloads/research/RR_06_01.pdf.
Yurdabakan, I., &Uzunkavak, C. (2012). Primary school students’ attitudes towards computer based testing and assessment in turkey. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 177-188. |
| This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. |