Implementation of an automated grading system with an adaptive learning component to affect student feedback and response time

Journal of Information Systems Education

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 71-80

  Matthews, Kevin ^a   Janicki, Thomas ^a   He, Ling ^b   Patterson, Laurie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA WILMINGTON   (United States)

^b SAGINAW VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Pedagogy; Rubrics

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE LEARNING; AUTOMATED GRADING SYSTEMS; COMPUTER LITERACY; COMPUTER SKILL; FEEDBACK TO STUDENTS; GRADING SYSTEM; LEARNING THEORY; PEDAGOGY; PERSONAL PRODUCTIVITY; RESOURCE-BASED VIEW; RUBRICS; STUDENT FEEDBACK;

COMPUTER SCIENCE; RESEARCH; STUDENTS;

GRADING;

EID: 84865544581     PISSN: 10553096     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Ahonjemi, T. and Karavirta, V. (2009). Analyzing the use of a rubric-based grading tool. Proceedings of the fourteenth annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and technology in Computer Science Education, 333-337.
2. Anglin, L., Anglin K., Schumman, P., and Kalinski, J., (2008). Improving the efficiency and effectivement of grading through the use of computer assisted grading rubrics. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6 (1), 51-73.
3. Conole, G. and Warburton, B. (2005). A review of computer-assisted assessment. Research in Learning Technology, 13(1), 17-31.
4. Crews, T., and Murphy, C. (2008). CASEGRADER: Microsoft Office Excel Casebook with Autograding Technology. Boston, MA: Thomson Course Technology.
5. Debuse, J., Lawley, M., and Shibl, R. (2007). The implementation of an automated assessment feedback and quality assurance system for ICT courses. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18 (4), 491-502.
6. Dewald, N. (1999). Web-based Library Instruction: What Is Good Pedagogy? Information Technology and Libraries, 18 (1), 26-31.
7. Dodrill, W., Lidtke, D. K., Brown, C., Shamos, M., and Fosberg, M., (1981). "Plagiarism in computer sciences courses (Panel Discussion)," Proceedings of the twelfth SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education, 26-27.
8. Draper, S., Brown, M., Henderson, F. and McAtee, E. (1996). Integrative evaluation and emerging role for classroom studies of CAL. Computers Education, 26 (1), 13-20.
9. EMC/ Paradigm Publishing (2007). College Catalog: Computer Technology: Snap Web-based Training and Assessment: Snap 2007. (Online). Retrieved: 7/1/2010: http://www.emcp.com/product_catalog/index.php?GroupI D=1926 [October 13, 2007].
10. Gagne, R. (1965). The Conditions of Learning (1st Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
11. Gagne, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning (4th Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
12. Gagne, R. (1988). Mastery Learning and Instructional Design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 1 (1), 7-18.
13. Gagne, R., Briggs, L. and Wager, W. (1992). Principles of Instructional Design (4th Ed.). Fort Worth, TX: HBJ College Publishers.
14. Heinrich, E., Milne, J., Ramsay, A., and Morrison, D. (2009). Recommendations for the Use of E-tools for Improvements around Assignment Marking Quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34 (4), 469-479.
15. Janicki, T., and Steinberg, J. (2003) Evaluation of a Computer - Supported Learning System. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education. 2 (1), 203-223.
16. Kay, D. (1998). "Large Introductory Computer Science Classes: Strategies for Effective Course Management," ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 30, 131-134.
17. Kulhavy, R. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47 (1), 211-232.
18. Martin, F., Klein, J. and Sullivan, H. (2007). The Impact of Instructional Elements in Computer-Based Instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (4), 623-636.
19. Murray, T., (1998). Authoring Knowledge Based Tutors: Tools for Content, Instructional Strategy, Student Model and Interface Design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7 (1), 5-64.
20. National Research Council (1999). BeFIT: Being Fluent in Information Technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21. Phillips, T., Hannafin, M., and Tripp, S. (1988). The effects of practice and orienting activities on learning from interactive video. Educational Communication and Technology, 36, 93-102.
22. Rakes, G. (1996). "Using the Internet as a tool in resource based learning environment". Educational Technology, 6 (2), 52-29.
23. Reiser, R. and Dick, W. (1996). Instructional Planning: A guide for teachers (2nd Ed.). Allyn and Bacon Publication, Columbus OH.
24. SAMS2007 (2007). Course Technology - SAM 2007 Training V1.0. Retrieved: 3/17/2010: http://www.course.com/catalog/product.cfm?isbn=978-1-4239-1305-4
25. Schiller, S. (2009), Practicing Learner-Centered Teaching: Pedagogical Design and Assessment of a Second Life Project. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20 (3), 369-382.
26. Stattrek (2010), Hypothesis Test of the Mean, (Online), Retrieved: 7/1/2010: http://stattrek.com/Lesson5/Mean.aspx
27. Tan, C. (2009), Assessment via WebCT Quizzes: Offline Grading Process with Customized Feedback, Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education. (1), 321-326.
28. Yadin, A., and Or-Bach, R. (2010). The Importance of Emphasizing Individual Learning in the "Collaborative Learning Era", Journal of Information Systems Education, 21 (2), 185-194.