Try Computer Administered Testing

Carlson, David

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13144-3_84

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Terms relating to digitally supported assessment systems have been used inconsistently. Frequent terms include computer-based assessment and computer-based testing (Quellmalz, 2015), computerized mastery testing (Liefeld and Herrmann, 1990) or computer-administered testing (Carlson, 2015). Given the availability of advanced data analytics applications, computerized adaptive testing (CAT) and computerized classification testing (CCT) systems have seen a rise in implementation (van der Kleij and Adie, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empowering higher education students to monitor their learning progress: opportunities of computerised classification testing

Şahi̇n

2023

ITSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to focus on providing a computerized classification testing (CCT) system that can easily be embedded as a self-assessment feature into the existing legacy environment of a higher education institution, empowering students with self-assessments to monitor their learning progress and following strict data protection regulations. The purpose of this study is to investigate the use of two different versions (without dashboard vs with dashboard) of the CCT system during the course of a semester; to examine changes in the intended use and perceived usefulness of two different versions (without dashboard vs with dashboard) of the CCT system; and to compare the self-reported confidence levels of two different versions (without dashboard vs with dashboard) of the CCT system. Design/methodology/approach A total of N = 194 students from a higher education institution in the area of economic and business education participated in the study. The participants were provided access to the CCT system as an opportunity to self-assess their domain knowledge in five areas throughout the semester. An algorithm was implemented to classify learners into master and nonmaster. A total of nine metrics were implemented for classifying the performance of learners. Instruments for collecting co-variates included the study interest questionnaire (Cronbach’s a = 0. 90), the achievement motivation inventory (Cronbach’s a = 0. 94), measures focusing on perceived usefulness and demographic data. Findings The findings indicate that the students used the CCT system intensively throughout the semester. Students in a cohort with a dashboard available interacted more with the CCT system than students in a cohort without a dashboard. Further, findings showed that students with a dashboard available reported significantly higher confidence levels in the CCT system than participants without a dashboard. Originality/value The design of digitally supported learning environments requires valid formative (self-)assessment data to better support the current needs of the learner. While the findings of the current study are limited concerning one study cohort and a limited number of self-assessment areas, the CCT system is being further developed for seamless integration of self-assessment and related feedback to further reveal unforeseen opportunities for future student cohorts.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empowering higher education students to monitor their learning progress: opportunities of computerised classification testing

Şahi̇n

2023

ITSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Try Computer Administered Testing

Cited by 1 publication

References 7 publications

Empowering higher education students to monitor their learning progress: opportunities of computerised classification testing

Empowering higher education students to monitor their learning progress: opportunities of computerised classification testing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About