Marking essays on screen: An investigation into the reliability of marking extended subjective texts

British Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 41, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 814-826

  Johnson, Martin ^a   Nádas, Rita ^a   Bell, John F ^a  

^a University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DIFFERENT MODES; ENGLISH LITERATURE; FOCUS OF ATTENTION; GOLD STANDARDS;

RESEARCH;

RELIABILITY;

EID: 77955750778     PISSN: 00071013     EISSN: 14678535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00979.x     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Bennett, R. E. (2002). Inexorable and inevitable: the continuing story of technology and assessment. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 1, 1, 1 24.
2. Creed, A., Dennis, I. Newstead, S. (1987). Proof-reading on VDUs. Behaviour and Information Technology, 6, 1, 3 13.
3. Dillon, A. (1994). Designing usable electronic text. London : Taylor & Francis.
4. Fowles, D. (2008). Does marking images of essays on screen retain marker confidence and reliability? Paper presented at the International Association for Educational Assessment Annual Conference, September 7-12, Cambridge, UK.
5. Gould, J. D. Grischowsky, N. (1984). Doing the same work with hard copy and with cathode-ray tube (CRT) computer terminals. Human Factors, 26, 323 337.
6. Hansen, W. J. Haas, C. (1988). Reading and writing with computers: a framework for explaining differences in performance. Communications of the ACM, 31, 9, 1080 1089.
7. Harpster, J. L. (1989). Visual performance on CRT screens and hard copy displays. Human Factors, 31, 3, 247 257.
8. Johnson, M. Greatorex, J. (2008). Judging text presented on screen: implications for validity. E-Learning, 5, 1, 40 50.
9. Kurniawan, S. H. Zaphiris, P. (2001). Reading online or on paper: which is faster? In Proceedings of HCI International 2001 (pp. 220 222). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.
10. Mayes, D. K., Sims, V. K. Koonce, J. M. (2001). Comprehension and workload differences for VDT and paper-based reading. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28, 367 378.
11. Mills, C. B. Weldon, L. J. (1987). Reading text from computer screens. ACM Computing Surveys, 19, 4, 329 357.
12. Muter, P., Latremouille, S. A., Treurniet, W. C. Beam, P. (1982). Extended reading of continuous texts on television screens. Human Factors, 24, 501 508.
13. Neuman, G. Baydoun, R. (1998). Computerization of paper-and-pencil tests: when are they equivalent? Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 1, 71 83.
14. Noyes, J. M. Garland, K. J. (2003). VDT versus paper-based text: reply to Mayes, Sims and Koonce. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 31, 6, 411 423.
15. O'Hara, K. Sellen, A. (1997). A comparison of reading paper and on-line documents. In S. Pemberton (Ed. Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, GA (pp. 335 342). New York : ACM Press.
16. Paek, P. (2005). Recent trends in comparability studies. PEM Research Report 05-05.
17. Piolat, A., Roussey, J.-Y. Thunin, O. (1997). Effects of screen presentation on text reading and revising. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 47, 565 589.
18. Preckel, F. Thiemann, H. (2003). Online- versus paper-pencil-version of a high potential intelligence test. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 62, 2, 131 138.
19. QCA (2007). GCSE, GCE, GNVQ and AEA code of practice. London : QCA.
20. Suto, W. M. I., Nádas, R. Bell, J. F. (in press). Who should mark what? A study of factors affecting marking accuracy in a biology examination. Research Papers in Education.
21. Wästlund, E., Reinikka, H., Norlander, T. Archer, T. (2005). Effects of VDT and paper presentation on consumption and production of information: psychological and physiological factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 377 394.
22. Weldon, L. J., Mills, C. B., Koved, L. Shneiderman, B. (1985). The structure of information in online and paper technical manuals. In R. W. Sweezy (Ed. Proceedings of the human factors society 29th annual meeting Vol. 2 (pp. 1110 1113). Santa Monica, CA : Human Factors Society.
23. Wilkinson, R. T. (1987). Proof-reading: VDU and paper text compared for speed, accuracy and fatigue. Behaviour and Information Technology, 6, 2, 125 133.
24. Wright, P. Lickorish, A. (1983). Proof-reading texts on screen and paper. Behaviour and Information Technology, 2, 3, 227 235.