TWO APPROACHES IN STUDENT ACHIEVEMENTS ASSESSMENT – PRO ET CONTRA

Erika Nagle, Aija Strode

Abstract


Student achievement depends very much on reliable and valid assessment methods. In this paper assessment of reflecting writing and computer based on - line tests will be discussed. The main challenge in evaluation reflecting writing tests is objectivity. For this purpose test papers were evaluated mutually by different lecturers and grading compared by Pearson`s correlation coefficient. Results showed that strong correlation exists in all compared assessor pairs. In computer based on-line test in Moodle platform evaluation is done by computer programme and grading is announced just after student finishes the test. In purpose to maintain student`s reflective skills clinical case and/or problem were included in computer based tests. These questions were evaluated manually. Two types of assessment – manual and computer based have their advantages and disadvantages. Our conclusion is that different tests and assessment methods should be used for comprehensive and objective evaluation of student`s outcomes.

Keywords


Cohen’s kappa; Computer based tests (CBT); Paper-based tests (PBT); Student outcomes

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bartram, B., and Bailey, C. (2010). Assessment preferences: A comparison of UK/international students at an English university. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 15 (2), 177–87.

Cantillon, P., Irish, B., Sales D.(2004). Using computers for assessment in medicine. BMJ, 329, 7466.

Chen, I., Forbes, C. (2014). Reflective writing and its impact on empathy in medical education: systemic review. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 11, 20.

Conole, G.,Warburton, B. (2005). A Review of Computer Assisted Assessment. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 13(1), 17-31.

Csapo. B., Ainley. J., Bennett. R.E., Latour. T., Law. N. (2012). Technological issues for computer-based assessment. Chapter in Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills, pp 143-230

Griffin. P., McGaw. B., Care. E. (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Netherlands: Springer: pp. 143.

Hewson. C., Charlton. J., Brosnan. M. (2007) Comparing online and offline administration of multiple choice question assessments to psychology undergraduates: do assessment modality or computer attitudes influence performance? Psychology Learning and Teaching, 6, 37–46.

Hoic-Bozic. N., Mornar. V., Boticki. I. (2008). Introducing adaptivity and collaborative support into a Web-based LMS. Computing and informatics, 27(4), 639-669.

Kuzmina. I. P. (2010). Computer-based testing: advantages and disadvantages. Вісник НТУУ «КПІ». Філософія. Психологія. Педагогіка : збірник наукових праць. 1(28), 192–196.

Mamede. S., Schmidt. H.G., Penaforte. J.C. (2008). Effects of reflective practice on the accuracy of medical diagnoses. Medical Education, 42,468–475.

Marla L. Domino. (2006). Psychological testing: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, pp. 475-485.

Wald. H., Borkan. J., Taylor. J., Anthony. D., Reis. S. (2012). Fostering and evaluating reflective capacity in medical education: developing the REFLECT rubric for assessing reflective writing. Academic Medicine, 87(1), 41– 50.

Wald. H.S., Reis. S.P. (2010). Beyond the Margins: Reflective Writing and Development of Reflective Capacity in Medical Education. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25,746.

Stobart. G. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. London: Routledge.

Ward. W., Murray-Ward. M. (1999). Assessment in the Classroom. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Wise. S. L., Plake. B. S. (1989). Research on the effects of administering tests via computers. Educational Measurement: Issues&Practice, 8 (3), 5-10.

Yassin Karay, Stefan K. Schauber, Christoph Stosch & Katrin Schüttpelz-Brauns. (2015). Computer Versus Paper—Does It Make Any Difference in Test Performance?

Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 27(1), 57-62.

Yorke. M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45 (4), 477–501.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17770/sie2017vol1.2430

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.