Rethinking testing mode: Should I offer my next chemistry test on paper or computer?

Computers and Education

Volumn 106, Issue , 2017, Pages 1-12

  Prisacari, Anna Agripina ^a   Danielson, Jared ^a  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Improving classroom teaching; Postsecondary education; Teaching learning strategies

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; IODINE; PAPER; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

CHEMISTRY CONCEPTS; COMPUTER-BASED TESTING; DEFINITION QUESTIONS; GENERAL CHEMISTRY COURSE; IMPROVING CLASSROOM TEACHING; POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION; STUDENT PERFORMANCE; TEACHING/LEARNING STRATEGY;

COMPUTER TESTING;

COMPUTERS; EDUCATION;

EID: 85000671305     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.008     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Abdul, B., Adesope, O.O., Thiessen, D.B., van Wie, B.J., Comparing the effects of two active learning approaches. International Journal of Engineering Education 32:2 (2016), 654–669.
2. Anderson, S.W., Libarkin, J.C., Conceptual mobility and entrenchment in introductory geoscience courses: New questions regarding physics' and chemistry's role in learning earth science concepts. Journal of Geoscience Education 64:1 (2016), 74–86 http://doi.org/10.5408/14-017.1.
3. Bao, L., Theoretical comparisons of average normalized gain calculations. American Journal of Physics, 74(10), 2006, 917 http://doi.org/10.1119/1.2213632.
4. Bennett, R.E., Braswell, J., Oranje, A., Sandene, B., Kaplan, B., Yan, F., Does it matter if I take my mathematics test on computer? A second empirical study of mode effects in NAEP. The Journal of Technology Learning and Assessment, 6(9), 2008.
5. Bretz, S.L., McClary, L., Students' understandings of acid strength: How meaningful is reliability when measuring alternative conceptions?. Journal of Chemical Education 92:2 (2015), 212–219 http://doi.org/10.1021/ed5005195.
6. Cepeda, N.J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J.T., Rohrer, D., Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin 132:3 (2006), 354–380 http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354.
7. Chua, Y.P., Don, Z.M., Effects of computer-based educational achievement test on test performance and test takers' motivation. Computers in Human Behavior 29:5 (2013), 1889–1895 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.03.008.
8. Clariana, R., Wallace, P., Paper-based versus computer-based assessment: Key factors associated with the test mode effect. British Journal of Educational Technology 33:5 (2002), 593–602 http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00294.
9. Cooper, M.M., Underwood, S.M., Hilley, C.Z., Development and validation of the implicit information from Lewis structures instrument (IILSI): Do students connect structures with properties?. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 13:3 (2012), 195–200 http://doi.org/10.1039/c2rp00010e.
10. Dempster, F.N., Synthesis of research on reviews and tests. Educational Leadership 48:7 (1991), 71–76.
11. Dirkx, K.J.H., Kester, L., Kirschner, P.A., The testing effect for learning principles and procedures from texts. The Journal of Educational Research 107:5 (2014), 357–364 http://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.823370.
12. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K.A., Marsh, E.J., Nathan, M.J., Willingham, D.T., Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 14:1 (2013), 4–58 http://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266.
13. Engelbrecht, J., Harding, A., Combing online and paper assessment in a web-based course in undergraduate mathematics. Journal of Computers in Mathematics 23 (2004), 217–231 Retrieved from: http://www.editlib.org/p/11487.
14. Field, A., Discovering statistics using SPSS. 2009, Sage Publications, London.
15. Goldberg, A.L., Pedulla, J.J., Performance differences according to test mode and computer familiarity on a practice graduate record exam. Educational and Psychological Measurement 62:6 (2002), 1053–1067 http://doi.org/10.1177/0013164402238092.
16. Hake, R., Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey or mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics 66:1 (1998), 64–74.
17. Hochlehnert, A., Brass, K., Moeltner, A., Juenger, J., Does medical students' preference of test format (computer-based vs. paper-based) have an influence on performance?. BMC Medical Education, 11(1), 2011, 89 http://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-11-89.
18. Horkay, N., Bennett, R.E., Allen, N., Kaplan, B., Yan, F., Does it matter if I take my writing test on computer? An empirical study of mode effects in NAEP. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 5:2 (2006), 1–49.
19. Karpicke, J.D., Roediger, H.L., Expanding retrieval practice promotes short-term retention, but equally spaced retrieval enhances long-term retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33:4 (2007), 704–719 http://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.704.
20. Keng, L., McClarty, K.L., Davis, L.L., Item-level comparative analysis of online and paper administrations of the Texas assessment of knowledge and skills. Applied Measurement in Education 21:3 (2008), 207–226 http://doi.org/10.1080/08957340802161774.
21. Kornell, N., Bjork, R. a, Learning concepts and categories: Is spacing the “enemy of induction”?. Psychological Science 19:6 (2008), 585–592 http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02127.x.
22. Kornell, N., Castel, A.D., Eich, T.S., Bjork, R.A., Spacing as the friend of both memory and induction in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging 25:2 (2010), 498–503 http://doi.org/10.1037/a0017807.
23. Marshman, E., Singh, C., Interactive tutorial to improve student understanding of single photon experiments involving a Mach–Zehnder interferometer. European Journal of Physics, 37(2), 2016 http://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/37/2/024001.
24. Mazza, S., Gerbier, E., Gustin, M.-P., Kasikci, Z., Koenig, O., Toppino, T.C., et al. Relearn faster and retain longer: Along with practice, sleep makes perfect. Psychological Science, 2016, 1–10 http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616659930.
25. McClary, L.M., Bretz, S.L., Development and Assessment of A Diagnostic tool to identify organic chemistry students' alternative conceptions related to acid strength. International Journal of Science Education 34:15 (2012), 2317–2341 http://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.684433.
26. Meyer, A.J., Innes, S.I., Stomski, N.J., Armson, A.J., Student performance on practical gross anatomy examinations is not affected by assessment modality. Anatomical Sciences Education 9:2 (May 2016), 111–120 http://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1542.
27. Michinov, N., Morice, J., Ferrières, V., A step further in Peer Instruction: Using the Stepladder technique to improve learning. Computers & Education 91 (2015), 1–13 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.007.
28. Miron, G., Gulosino, C., Virtual schools report 2016: Directory and performance review., 2016 Boulder, CO. Retrieved from: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/virtual-schools-annual-2016.
29. Ojennus, D.D., Assessment of learning gains in a flipped biochemistry classroom. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 2015, 20–27 http://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20926.
30. Pallant, J., SPSS: Survival manual. 4th edition, 2010, McGraw Hill, New York Retrieved from: https://statistics.laerd.com/stata-tutorials/one-way-anova-using-stata.php.
31. Prisacari, A.A., The testing effect in general chemistry: Effects of repeated testing on student performance across different test modes. MS Thesis, 2015, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
32. Roediger, H.L. III, Agarwal, P.K., McDaniel, M.A., McDermott, K.B., Test-enhanced learning in the classroom: Long-term improvements from quizzing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 17:4 (2011), 382–395 Retrieved from: http://psycnet.apa.orgjournals/xap/17/4/382.
33. Roediger, H.L., Karpicke, J.D., The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science 1:3 (2006), 181–210 http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x.
34. Roediger, H., Putnam, A., Smith, M., Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice. Cognition in education, 2011, Academic Press, 313 Retrieved from: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en%26lr=%26id=eyCK7P07xykC%26pgis=1.
35. Smith, K.C., Nakhleh, M.B., Bretz, S.L., An expanded framework for analyzing general chemistry exams. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 11:3 (2010), 147–153 http://doi.org/10.1039/C005463C.
36. StataCorp, STATA. 2013, StataCorp LP, College Station: TX.
37. Streiner, D.L., Construct validity of the relationship profile Test: A self-report measure of dependency-detachment construct validity of the relationship profile Test: A self-report measure of dependency – detachment. Journal of Personality Assessment 80:1 (2003), 99–103 http://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001.
38. Tsai, T.-H., Shin, C.D., A score comparability study for the NBDHE: Paper-pencil versus computer versions. Evaluation & the Health Professions 36:2 (2012), 228–239 http://doi.org/10.1177/0163278712445203.
39. United States. State of Florida, Requirements for a standard high school diploma. Pub. L. No. 1003.4282(4), 2015 Retrieved from: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute%26Search_String=%26URL=1000-1099/1003/Sections/1003.4282.html.
40. United States State of Michigan, The revised school code. Pub. L. No. 380.1278a(1)(b), 2006 Retrieved from: http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7–140-28753_38924–-,00.html.