Learning assessment strategies for an educational construction safety video game

Construction Research Congress 2012: Construction Challenges in a Flat World, Proceedings of the 2012 Construction Research Congress

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 2091-2100

  Liaw, Yuan Ling ^a   Lin, Ken Yu ^a   Li, Min ^a   Chi, Nai Wen ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Construction safety; Educational video game; Learning assessment

Indexed keywords

3D VIDEO; COGNITIVE LEARNING; CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING; CONSTRUCTION SAFETY; EDUCATIONAL VIDEOS; ENGAGING STUDENTS; EVALUATION STRATEGIES; INNOVATIVE LEARNING; LEARNING ASSESSMENT; MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS; PAPER-BASED TEST; SAFETY EDUCATION; STATISTICAL VALIDITY; STUDENT LEARNING; STUDENT PERFORMANCE; UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON; VIDEO GAME; VIEWING ANGLE; VIRTUAL MODELS; WORKING ENVIRONMENT;

EDUCATION COMPUTING; HAZARDS; RESEARCH;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84866254105     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1061/9780784412329.210     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (13)

1. Alexander, M. W., Bartlett, J. E., II, Truell, A. D., & Ouwenga, K. (2001). Testing in a computer technology course: An investigation of equivalency in performance between online and paper and pencil methods. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 18(1), 69-80.
2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
3. Baxter, G. P., & Shavelson, R. J. (1994). Science performance assessments: Benchmarks and surrogrates. International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 279-297. BLS, Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (2003 forward), 2009. [available at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?fi, last accessed on Feb. 12, 2010]
4. Bugbee, A. C., Jr. (1996). The equivalence of paper and pencil and computer-based testing. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(3), 282-299.
5. Huff, K. L., and Sireci, S. G. (2005). Validity Issues in Computer-Based Testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20, 3, 16-25.
6. Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.). Educational Measurement (Fourth Edition) (pp. 17-64). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
7. Lin, K.Y., Son, J. W., & Rojas, E. M. (2011). A pilot study of a 3D game environment for construction safety education. Electronic Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 16, 69-84.
8. Messick, S. (1993). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed), Educational measurement (2nd ed. pp. 13-104). Phoenix: American Council on Education and Oryx Press.
9. Parshall, C. G., Davey, T., and Pashley, P. (2010). Innovative item types for computerized testing. In W. J. van der Linden & C. A. W. Glas (Eds.), Computer adaptive testing: Theory and practice. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
10. Parshall, C. G., Spray, J. A., Kalohn, J. C., & Davey, T. (2002). Practical considerations in computer-based testing. New York: Springer.
11. Ricketts, C., & Wilks, S. J. (2002). Improving student performance through computer based assessment: Insights from recent research. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 475-479.
12. Sireci, S. G., and Zenisky, A. L. (2006). Innovative item formats in computer-based testing: In pursuit of construct representation. In S. M. Downing, & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ.
13. Truell, A. D. (2005). Comparing Student Performance on Two Computer-Based User Interfaces and Paper-and Pencil-Test Formats. NABTE Review, 32, 29-35.