The development and evaluation of a software prototype for computer-adaptive testing

Computers and Education

Volumn 43, Issue 1-2 SPEC ISS., 2004, Pages 109-123

  Lilley, M ^a   Barker, T ^a   Britton, C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HERTFORDSHIRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Applications in subject areas; Evaluation of CAL systems; Human computer interface; Pedagogical issues

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SOFTWARE SELECTION AND EVALUATION; MULTIMEDIA SYSTEMS; SOFTWARE PROTOTYPING; STUDENTS; TEACHING; USER INTERFACES;

APPLICATIONS IN SUBJECT AREAS; EVALUATION OF CAL SYSTEMS; PEDAGOGICAL ISSUES;

COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION;

EID: 1842737134     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2003.12.008     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (33)

1. Barker, T., & Barker, J. (2002). The evaluation of complex, intelligent, interactive, individualised human-computer interfaces: What do we mean by reliability and validity? In Proceedings of the 7th learning styles conference. University of Ghent, Belgium, European Learning Styles Information Network (ELSIN).
2. Barker, T., & Lilley, M. (2003). Are individual learners disadvantaged by the use of computer-adaptive testing? In Proceedings of the 8th learning styles conference. University of Hull, European Learning Styles Information Network (ELSIN).
3. Barker T., Jones S., Britton C., Messer D. The use of a co-operative student model of learner characteristics to configure a multimedia application. User Modelling and User Adapted Interaction. 12(2/3):2002;207-241.
4. Bly S.A., Rosenberg J.K. A comparison of tiled and overlapping windows. Proceedings of the CHI 86: Conference on human factors in computing systems. 1986;101-106 ACM Press, New York.
5. Boyle, A., & O'Hare, D. (2003). Finding appropriate methods to assure quality computer-based development in UK Higher Education. In Proceedings of the 7th computer-assisted assessment conference. Loughborough University, United Kingdom.
6. Boyle T. Designing for multimedia learning. 1997;Prentice-Hall, Cornwall.
7. British Standards Institution (2001). New exam guidelines to stop the cyber-cheats [online]. Available: www.bsi-global.com/Corporate/News+Room/exams. xalter [Accessed August 8, 2003].
8. Carlson R.D. Computer-adaptive testing: A shift in the evaluation paradigm. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 22(3):1994;213-224.
9. Conole, G., & Bull, J. (2002). Pebbles in the pond: Evaluation of the CAA Centre. In Proceedings of the 6th computer-assisted assessment conference. Loughborough University, United Kingdom.
10. De Angelis S. Equivalency of computer-based and paper-and-pencil testing. Journal of Allied Health. 29(3):2000;161-164.
11. Doubleday, F. (2000). CAA as innovation capable of affecting change. In Proceedings of the 4th computer-assisted assessment conference. Loughborough University, United Kingdom.
12. Educational Testing Service (2003). TOEFL testing on computer. [online]. Available: www.toefl.org/educator/edcomptest.html [Accessed August 8, 2003].
13. Freedle R.O., Duran R.P. Cognitive and linguistic analyses of test performance. 1987;Ablex, New Jersey.
14. Graduate Management Admission Council (2002). Computer-adaptive format [online]. Available: www.mba.com/mba/TaketheGMAT/TheEssentials/WhatIstheGMAT/ ComputerAdaptiveFormat.htm [Accessed March 23, 2003].
15. Hambleton R.K. Fundamentals of item response theory. 1991;Sage Publications, California.
16. Harvey J., Mogey N. Pragmatic issues when integrating technology into the assessment of students. Brown S., Race P., Bull J. Computer-assisted assessment in higher education. 1999;Kogan Page, London.
17. Jacobson R.L. New computer technique seen producing a revolution in educational testing. Chronicle of Higher Education. 40(4):1993;22-23.
18. Khan P. Visual cues for local and global coherence in the WWW. Communications of the ACM. 38(8):1995;67-69.
19. Kleeman, J., Keech, D., & Wright, S. (2001). Soliciting feedback for a British Standard Code of Practice for using IT in delivering assessments. In Proceedings of the 5th computer-assisted assessment conference. Loughborough University, United Kingdom.
20. Laurillard D. Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. 1993;Routledge, London.
21. Lilley, M., & Barker, T. (2002). The development and evaluation of a computer-adaptive testing application for English language. In Proceedings of the 6th computer-assisted assessment conference. Loughborough University, United Kingdom.
22. Lilley, M., & Barker, T. (2003). An evaluation of a computer-adaptive test in a UK University context. In Proceedings of the 7th computer-assisted assessment conference. Loughborough University, United Kingdom.
23. Lilley, M., Barker, T., Bennett, S., & Britton, C. (2002). How computers can adapt to knowledge: A comparison of computer-based and computer-adaptive testing. In Proceedings of the international conference on information and communication technologies in education. Badajoz, Spain, Junta de Extremadura Consejería de Educación, Ciencia y Tecnología.
24. Lord F.M. Applications of Item Response Theory to practical testing problems. 1980;Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
25. Mason B.J., Patry M., Bernstein D.J. An examination of the equivalence between non-adaptive computer-based and traditional testing. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 24(1):2001;29-39.
26. Microsoft Corporation (2002). Exam and testing procedures [online]. Available: www.microsoft.com/traincert/mcpexams/faq/procedures.asp [Accessed March 23, 2003].
27. Molich R., Nielsen J. Improving a human-computer dialogue. Communications of the ACM. 33(3):1990;338-348.
28. Muldner T., Muldner K., van Veen C.M. Experience from the design of an authoring environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. 6(1):1997;114-132.
29. Preece J., Rogers Y., Sharp H. Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction. 2002;Wiley, New Jersey.
30. Pritchett N. Effective question design. Brown S., Race P., Bull J. Computer-assisted assessment in higher education. 1999;Kogan Page, London.
31. Sclater N., Howie K. User requirements of the "ultimate" online assessment engine. Computers & Education. 40(3):2003;285-306.
32. Towse R.J., Garside P. Integration and evaluation of CAL courseware and automated assessment in the delivery of a geography module. Journal of Geography in Higher Education. 22(3):1998;385-393.
33. Wainer H. Computerized adaptive testing (a primer). 1990;Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.