Examinee characteristics associated with choice of composition medium on the TOEFL writing section

Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment

Volumn 2, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 1-26

  Wolfe, Edward W ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042617126     PISSN: 15402525     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Agresti, A. (1996). An introduction to categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley.
2. Allison, P.D. (1999). Logisitic regression using the SAS system: Theory and application. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
3. Arnold, V., Legas, J., Obler, S., Pacheco, M. A., Russell, C., & Umbdenstock, L. (1990). Direct writing assessment: A study of bias in scoring hand-written vs. wordprocessed papers (unpublished paper). Whittier, CA: Rio Hondo College.
4. Breland, H., Muraki, E., & Lee, Y. W. (2001, April). Comparability of TOEFL CBT writing prompts for different response modes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Seattle, WA.
5. Bridgeman, B., & Cooper, P. (1998, April). Comparability of scores on wordprocessed and handwritten essays on the graduate management admissions test. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
6. Collier, R., & Werier, C. (1995). When computer writers compose by hand. Computers and Composition, 12, 47-59.
7. Educational Testing Service. (1999). Description of the computer-based TOEFL test [Internet Web Page, available: http://www.teofl.org/descbcbt.html. Princeton, NJ: Author.
8. Gallagher, A., Bridgeman, B., & Cahalan, C. (2002). The Effect of computerbased tests on racial/ethnic and gender groups. Journal of Educational Measurement, 39, 133-147.
9. Gentile, C., Riazantseva, A., & Cline, F. (2001). A comparison of handwritten and word processed TOEFL essays: Final report. (TOEFL Research Council). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
10. Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effects of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1). Retrieved April 20, 2003, from www.jtla.org
11. Grignon, J. R. (1993). Computer experience of Menominee indian students: Gender differences in coursework and use of software. Journal of American Indian Education, 32, 1-15.
12. Harrington, S., Shermis, M. D., & Rollins, A. L. (2000). The in.uence of word processing on English placement test results. Computers and Composition, 17, 197-210.
13. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
14. Janssen Reinen, I., & Plomp, T. (1993). Some gender issues in educational computer use: Results of an international comparative survey. Computers in Education, 20, 353-365.
15. Keogh, T., Barnes, P., Joiner, R., & Littleton, K. (2000). Gender, pair composition, and computer versus paper presentation of an English language task. Educational Psychology, 20, 33-43.
16. Kim, S., & Hocevar, D. (1998). Racial differences in eighth-grade mathematics: Achievement and opportunity to learn. Clearing House, 71, 175-178.
17. Legg, S. M., & Buhr, D. C. (1992). Computerized adaptive testing with different groups. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11, 23-27.
18. MacCann, R., Eastment, B., & Pickering, S. (2002). Responding to free response examination questions: Computer versus pen and paper. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 173-188.
19. Manalo, J. R., & Wolfe, E. W. (2000a). A comparison of word-processed and handwritten essays written for the Test of English as a Foreign Language. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
20. Manalo, J. R., & Wolfe, E. W. (2000b). The impact of composition medium on essay raters in foreign language testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
21. Massoud, S. L. (1992). Computer attitudes and computer knowledge of adult students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7, 269-291.
22. Mead, A. D., & Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paperand-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 449-458.
23. Miller, F., & Varma, N. (1994). The effects of psychosocial factors on Indian chidren's attitudes toward computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10, 223-238.
24. Nolan, P. C. J., McKinnon, D. H., & Soler, J. (1992). Computers in education: Achieving equitable access and use. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24, 299-314.
25. Powers, D. E. (1993). Coaching for the SAT: A summary of the summaries and an update. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12, 24-30.
26. Powers, D. E., Fowles, M. E., Farnum, M., & Ramsey, P. (1994). Will they think less of my handwritten essay if others word process theirs? Effects on essay scores of intermingling handwritten and word-processed essays. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 220-233.
27. Powers, D. E., & Rock, D. A. (1999). Effects of coaching on SAT I: Reasoning test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 93-118.
28. Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111-163.
29. Russell, M. (1999). Testing on computers: A follow-up study comparing performance on computer and on paper. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 7(20). Retrieved November 29, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n20
30. Russell, M., & Haney, W. (1997). Testing writing on computers: An experiment comparing student performance on tests conducted via computer and via paper-and-pencil. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 5(1). Retrieved May 1, 1997, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v5n3.html
31. Shashaani, L. (1997). Gender differences in computer attitudes and use among college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16, 37-51.
32. Shermis, M. D., & Lombard, D. (1998). Effects of computer-based test administrations on test anxiety and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 111-123.
33. Stokes, M. E., Davis, C. S., & Koch, G. G. (2000). Categorical data analysis using the SAS system (2nd ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
34. Taylor, C., Kirsch, I., Eignor, D., & Jamieson, J. (1999). Examining the relationship between computer familiarity and performance on computerbased language tasks. Language Learning, 49, 219-274.
35. Turner, B. G. (1993). Test anxiety in African American school children. School Psychology Quarterly, 8, 140-152.
36. Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.
37. Whitely, B. E. (1997). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behavior: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 1-22.
38. Wiley, D. E., & Yoon, B. (1995). Teacher reports on opportunity to learn: Analyses of the 1993 California Learning Assessment System (CLAS). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 355-370.
39. Wise, S. L., & Plake, B. S. (1989). Research on the effects of administering tests via computers. Educational measurement: Issues and practice, 8, 5-10.
40. Wolfe, E. W., Bolton, S., Feltovich, B., & Bangert, A. W. (1996). A study of word processing experience and its effects on student essay writing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14, 269-284.
41. Wolfe, E. W., Bolton, S., Feltovich, B., & Niday, D. M. (1996). The in.uence of student experience with word processors on the quality of essays written for a direct writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 3, 123-147.
42. Wolfe, E. W., Bolton, S., Feltovich, B., & Welch, C. (1994, April). A comparison of word processor and handwriting essays from a standardized writing assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
43. Wolfe, E. W., & Manalo, J. R. (in press). An investigation of the impact of composition medium on the validity of scores from the TOEFL writing section. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.